위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive948

이네즈 재스퍼

12월에 WP를 지운 캐나다 음악가 이네즈 재스퍼에 대한 기사가 실렸다.NMUSIC #8 2회 주노상 후보 — 사전 편집 블록을 회피하는 사용자에 의해 만들어진 것으로 판단되었기 때문에 기준 G5에 따라 빠르게 삭제되었다.따라서, 나는 오늘 아침 새로운 버전을 다시 게시하여 가능한 한 모든 것을 다시 썼다. 내가 원본과 동일하게 남긴 것은 표준 위키백과 템플릿(즉, infobox와 음반 목록)과 그녀의 이름, 생년월일, 앨범 제목 자체와 같은 변경할 수 없는 사실들뿐이었다.나는 변경될 수 있는 모든 물질의 마지막 부분을 다시 쓰고 재구성했으며, 원본에는 전혀 없는 몇 개의 새로운 정보와 새로운 소싱을 추가했다. 그래서 남은 유일한 유사점은 그녀의 앨범에 가상의 대체 시간제 타이틀을 주지 않는 것과 같은 피할 수 없는 것들뿐이었습니다 - 그럼에도 불구하고 그 버젼조차도.시온은 원문의 "패러프레이즈"로서 몇 분 안에 속력을 얻었다.

문제는 그녀에 대해 할 말이 있는 것의 본질은 그 사실들을 어떻게 하든 말든 간에 원작과 똑같을 것이기 때문에 (그녀의 이름과 앨범 제목과 같은 세부 사항들에 대한 피할 수 없는 시합에서) 기사 내용의 마지막 한 마디를 완전히 다시 쓴다고 해도 여전히 "파라프라시"라는 것이다.ng" 원본 기사, 그러면 말 그대로 그녀에 대한 어떤 기사도 다시 만들어질 수 있는 방법이 전혀 남아 있지 않다.나는 새 기사를 첫 번째 버전과 충분히 다르게 썼는데, 단지 피할 수 없는 구조의 유사성 때문에 "파라프레이즈"로 삭제해서는 안 된다. 나는 그녀의 경력이나 그녀의 지명도 주장에 대해 완전히 새로운 사실들을 만들어 낼 수는 없지만, 오히려 내가 실제로 할 수 있는 유일한 것은 내가 할 수 있는 것과 동일한 사실에 대해 쓰는 것이다.첫 번째 버전과는 다른 단어들이었고, 나는 그것을 했다.

따라서, 내 질문은 내가 그 기사를 복권하려면 어떤 재청구를 해야 하느냐 하는 것이다.아직도 충분히 다르지 않은 상태로 영구히 다시 고쳐지지 않고 마침내 보관될 수 있으려면 내가 이미 했던 것 보다 얼마나 더 다르게 만들어야 하는가?베어캣 (토크) 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC) 19:26 [응답]

베어캣, 내가 복구했어.좋은 작품이다.프라임팩 (대화) 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC) 19:33[응답]

프라임팩 고마워, 그러려고 했는데 네가 날 이겼어.나는 WP로부터 위임에 관한 사항도 다음과 같이 말하고 싶다."프록시잉: "...그들이 변경사항이 검증가능하거나 생산적이라는 것을 보여줄 수 있고 그러한 편집을 할 독립적인 이유가 있는 경우"내 생각엔 여기 그런 것 같아.RickinBaltimore (대화) 19:35, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 말하고자 하는 것은 G5에 대한 경험이 풍부한 편집자가 기사로 일하기를 원한다면, 그들이 직면할 수 있는 역풍을 미리 알아본 후 복원하는 것이다. --NeilN 00:18, 2017년 3월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

벤사트리

비록 내가 그것을 찾았지만.trans_title비영어권 참고자료에 유용한 사용자 Vensatry는 이에 격렬히 반대하며 나는 그 이유를 이해할 수 없다.나는 그것이 유용하다고 그를 설득하기 위해 모든 노력을 했지만 그는 듣지 않았다.와 함께 디토.archiveurl그리고archivedate. Vijay filmography (현재의 FLC)에서는 많은 출처가 타밀어(비유니버설 언어)에 있고,trans_title그의 제안으로 그 안의 밭들이 제거되었다.그가 그렇게 제안하는 것이 옳았는가?카일라쉬29792 (대화) 14:48, 2017년 3월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

두 가지: 1) 다른 사용자에게 이 토론을 통지해야 할 것이고 2) 이것은 정말로 내용 분쟁이며, 이 게시판의 범위에는 해당되지 않는다.러그넛^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:00 2017년 3월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

아마 다른 곳을 위한 토론이겠지만, 나는 항상 사용할 때 약간 긴장된다.trans_title(내가 하는 것은) 독창적인 연구와 약간 비슷한 느낌이다.영어가 모국어가 아니라면 번역하기를 매우 주저하는 사용자를 볼 수 있다.공식 번역가는 모국어 외에는 절대 번역하면 안 된다.Nfitz (대화) 2017년 3월 7일 15:30 (UTC)[응답]

나는 ANI가 그런 문제를 논의할 수 있는 적절한 장소가 아니라는 것을 깨달았기 때문에 이 토론은 종결될 수도 있다.그러나 이것의 의도는 그의 의심스러운 행동들을 나열하고 그것이 정당한지 알아보려는 것이었다.카일라쉬29792 (대화) 02:57, 2017년 3월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자의 행동을 '질문할 수 있다'라고 부르기 전에 사용자의 대화 페이지에 직접 '질문'해야 한다.—Vensatry 06:24, 2017년 3월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

타일러 클레멘티의 자살을 위한 IP 레인지블록

홀수 IP 동작

187.74.246.62 (대화 · 기여)

그들의 마지막 편집은 1~3개의 빈 문자를 추가한 다음 1분 이내에 몇 개의 글에서 즉시 삭제되었다.이것들은 모두 공백 편집기여서 아무것도 파괴하지 않지만, 정말 이상하다.그들이 시스템이나 어떤 것을 게임을 하려고 하는지, 아니면 더 악의적인 것을 하려고 하는지 모르겠다. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

차단된 200.100.71.70(대화/연락처)으로 확인하십시오.동일한 모드 작업 및 동일한 서버 위치.파울루MSimoes (대화) 00:45, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

Tropic Thunder를 보면, 이것은 한달 넘게 다양한 IP 주소로 진행되고 있다.역사에 뭔가를 묻어두는 것 말고는, 누군가 이런 일을 하고 싶어할 것이라는, 파괴적이든 아니든 어떤 이유도 생각할 수 없다.몬티₈₄₅ 01:14, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

묻기를 시도한다면 SEMI에게 한 달이라도 걸어야 할까? 내 생각엔 장난치는 꼬마일 수도 있을 것 같아.L3X1My Republic Desk 01:50, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

이제 서로 다른 세 개의 IP를 사용하고 적어도 네 개의 다른 Wiki를 편집했다는 점에서 아마 장난치는 아이는 아닐 것이다. -- 아즈라다츠 (토크) 03:54, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

• IP 186.220.25.187도 여기에 포함되었다.Ajraddatz는 보고된 IP를 위키 간 반달리즘으로 차단했다.드레이미스 (대화) 03:09, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
• 여기 또 다른 것이 있는데, 191.248.153.48이다.위드르, 넌 200개의 IP를 차단했어.이 기괴한 일을 흘릴 빛이라도 있나?드레이미스 (대화) 03:13, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
• 위에서 언급한 두 가지 모두를 글로벌하게 차단했다.M: M:에 대한 보고서를 보고 난 후 우연히 이 남자를 만났어.SRG - 나는 위키가 어떻게 작동하는지, 그리고 우리가 어떻게 그러한 "반달리즘"을 롤백할 수 없는지에 대해 조금 아는 사람이라고 생각한다.우리에게는 그저 시간낭비용으로만 설계된 것일지도 모른다. -- 아즈라다츠(토크) 03:52, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
• 더 이상은 아니더라도 몇 달째 계속되고 있다.그것들은 WP에서 보고되었다.잠시 동안 - 예를 들어, 이 나사산.같은 행동, 같은 지리적 위치.닌자로봇피리테 (대화) 04:06, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 좋아, 그러니까 눈에 띄지 않게 막아라.하지만 수도꼭지에서 물이 떨어지는 것은 더 나쁘다.드레이미스 (대화) 04:59, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

그래, 브라질에서 온 그 백인 우주 시험 연구원이 수개월 동안 (대부분 같은 기사에) 이런 혼란을 겪으면서 많은 IP를 손끝에 갖다대고 있다.의심할 여지없이 그것으로부터 값싼 스릴을 얻는다.확실히 WP의 경우:NOTHERE. -- Good Day (토크) 13:09, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

이러한 종류의 편집을 중지하기 위해 필터 편집 규칙을 작성하는 것이 적절한가? -- Anome (대화) 18:10, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

물론이지, 제발!드레이미스 (토크) 2017년 3월 6일 18시 55분 (UTC)[응답]

관리자만 편집 필터를 쓸 수 있는가?L3X1My Republic Desk 20:27, 2017년 3월 6일(UTC)[응답]

@L3X1: 아니, 필터 편집 알림판에 필터 편집 권한을 요청할 수 있지만 정규 표현식 프로그래밍 및 MediaWiki API 이해 등의 필터 작성 방법을 알고 있는 확실한 증거를 보여줘야 할 것이다.리치333 14^(cont):28, 2017년 3월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

• IP의 행동을 변명하고 싶지는 않지만, 특히 그들이 보이는 것처럼 이 문제를 논의하기를 꺼려한다면, 나는 분명히 IP의 행동을 변명하고 싶지 않지만, 비록 편집이 잘못된 것일지라도 편집의 이면에 순수하고 중단 없는 근거가 있을 수 있다는 것을 지적하고 싶다.몇 년 전, 분명히 이것과 연결되지 않은 다른 사용자로부터 편집의 비슷한 패턴을 본 기억이 난다(나중에 그는 실제 계정을 등록했고 그는 캐나다인이다) - 그것에 대해 물어본 후, 나는 그가 어떤 이유로 위키백과 기사는 본질적으로 다음 기사의 맨 위에 편집되어야만 한다는 것을 그의 머릿속에 떠올릴 수 있었다.이전 시간 내에 편집하기 한 시간 전에 편집한 내용이 페이지 기록에 실제로 반영될 수 있었다. 그래서 그는 분명 잘못된 생각을 머리 속에 가지고 있었기 때문에 빈 칸을 추가한 다음 지난 한 시간 동안의 그의 작업이 단순히 사라지지 않도록 하기 위해 다시 빈 칸을 제거하고 있었다.그래서 나는 그가 걱정하는 것은 사실 아무 것도 아니라고 안심시켰고, 그는 그만 두었다.다시 말하지만, 이 사용자가 왜 그렇게 하는지에 대한 설명 없이는 우리는 그의 마음을 읽을 수 없지만, 나는 단지 누군가가 이것이 생산적인 것이라고 생각하는 좋은 믿음의 이유가 있을 수 있다는 증거로 이 사례를 제기하고 싶었다.베어캣 (토크) 22:20, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

  나는 가능한 한 선의를 전제로 하는 것에 일반적으로 동의하지만, IP 깡충깡충뿐만 아니라 편집의 교차위키 성격도 이것을 배제하는 것처럼 보일 것이다.게다가, 명시적인 반달리즘의 일부도 포함되어 있다 - 적어도 두어 페이지 분량의 빈칸과 내용은 임의의 문자로 대체된다.이 모든 것, 그리고 관련된 시간(최소한 몇 달)은 나를 여기서 선의의 가정으로부터 멀어지게 한다. -- 아즈라다츠 (대화) 06:45, 2017년 3월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

롤링 IP 편집기를 통한 중단 편집, 가장 최근 83.213.205.149

IP 편집자는 85.84.118.*와 83.213.* 범위의 IP를 사용하여 수개월 동안 Biscay의 Lordship을 방해해왔지만, 지난 며칠 동안 IP를 11개로 늘렸다.조치에는 다음이 포함된다.

3RR 위반(IP 이동으로 구분) [6] [7] [8] [9]

양말 인형극에 대한 근거 없는 비난 (나는 사용자라는 비난을 받고 있다.Maragm 또는 사용자:Asqueladd, 편집자가 어느 것을 결정할 수 없는 것 같지만: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] (관련되지 않은 사용자의 대화 페이지)

급여 편집에 대한 근거 없는 고발: [16]

WP 위반:NPA [17]("스크하드렐")

AGF 위반(또는 그렇게 볼 경우 NPA) [18]("더러운 플레이") [19](스페인어로 동일)

일반적인 일관성 없는 괴롭힘: [20] (그리고 이미 주어진 다른 차이에서)

같은 편집자(덕)가 사용한 이전 IP는 불과 3일 전만 해도 이것과 다른 페이지에서 동작 블록을 적용받았지만, 블록 기간 내에 IP를 옮겨 다른 편집(적용, 생산적인 편집)을 했다.[21](24시간 블록) [22](24시간 이내에 편집)

(여기서 자세히 설명하지 않을 동일한 IP에 대해 별도의 감독 조치를 요청했다.)

편집자가 편집자가 아닌 내용에 대해 토론하도록 시도했지만 소용이 없었다: [23] [24]

Talk의 일반적인 중단:비스케이의 로드십만이 토론의 시도로 난장판을 만들고 있는 반면, 비스케이의 로드십에서 일관성 없는 설명(또는 다른 언어로 일관성 없는/관련되지 않은 편집 요약)이 페이지 개선을 방해하고 있다.이 편집자는 탈선된 것 같다. 50.37.115.224 (대화) 14:52, 2017년 3월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

동일한 사람이 85.84.118.XX에서 편집한 예를 들어 주시겠습니까? 나는 그런 편집본을 찾을 수 없다.83.213.200.0/21 범위는 차단될 수 있다. 지난 몇 개월 동안의 모든 편집 내용은 동일한 개인 또는 적어도 파괴적인 것으로 보이기 때문이다. 비교 [25].2주 동안 범위를 차단했다. 50.37.117.209, 계정을 만들 생각은 없으십니까?만약 그랬다면 비스케이의 영주님과 그 연설문도 편리하게 반자동화 될 수 있겠지만, 지금 상태로는 기사에서 당신을 제외시키는 것이 망설여진다.비쇼넨은 15:45, 2017년 3월 4일 (UTC)을 이야기한다.[답답하다]

[26] by 85.84.118.247 by 2월 27일 현재 [27] by 83.213.205.149의 내용과 동일한 내용의 역전(설명되지 않음)이다.실제로, 85.84.118.247의 편집하여 역사 전적으로 같은 페이지 그리고 어떤 경우에는 사용자로서 같은 편집:83.213.206.197,는, 분명히 현재 IP와 같다. 85.84.118.247(, 83.213.77.74에 의해, 83.213.206.197에 의해;83.213.77.74 아는 것에 의해[28][29][30][31일][32][33], 83.213.206.197, edts[34]85.84.118.181 아는 것에 의해 만들어진 블록을 복원하는 오빠. 85.84.118.247).나한테는 거미줄 같은 물새 같지만 YMMV.

이 때 계정을 사용하지 않는 것을 선호하는 것이 상황을 다루기 더 어렵다는 것을 알지만, 그럼에도 불구하고 그것은 나의 선호다. 50.37.115.224 (대화) 16:30, 2017년 3월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

이해한다.85.84.XX IP는 꽥꽥거리지만 당신은 그 중 85.84.118.247과 85.84.118.181 두 개만 나에게 주었다.그것은 85.84.118.128/25라는 아주 작은 범위였습니다.나는 그것을 차단하는 것이 별로 의미가 없다고 본다. 왜냐하면 그것은 실제로 더 커져야 하기 때문이다. 그리고 85.84.118.247은 2월 27일에 25분 동안만 편집되었기 때문이다. 농담이 아니다.[35]를 참조하라. 그리고 85.84.118.181은 2016년 12월 14일에 몇 시간 동안만 편집되었다.그래서 그것은 좀 낡았다; 최근의 모든 혼란은 현재 차단된 83.213.200.0/21 범위에서 왔다.적어도 내가 너의 정보로 볼 수 있는 한.얼마든지 85.84를 더 주십시요.XX IP를 우연히 만나야 한다면.비쇼넨톡 17:59, 2017년 3월 4일 (UTC)[답답하다]

• OP에 대한 참고: 단일 기사에 대한 반복적인 IP 호핑 중단에 대한 표준(그리고 때로는 유일한) 해결책은 WP에서 기사의 일시적 반보호를 요청하는 것이다.IP가 기사를 편집하지 못하도록 하는 RFPP.물론, 당신도 그것을 편집할 수 없을 것이고, 그것은 당신이 정말로 열성적인 편집자라면 계정을 등록해야 하는 훌륭한 이유일 것이다.소프트라벤더 (대화) 10:01, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
• 업데이트: 85.84.115.9라는 또 다른 IP가 방금 나타나 비스케이의 영주권과 그 토크 페이지 모두를 파괴했다.두 번째 관련 범위인 85.84.112.0/21:-를 훨씬 쉽게 차단할 수 있게 해 주어서 기뻤다.그렇지 않다면, 나는 불리한 점에도 불구하고 준하는 것이 좋을 것 같아.비쇼넨톡 17:29, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[답답하다]
• 업데이트 II: 내 레인지블록이 아직 부족한 것으로 드러났다.기사(1개월)와 대화(2주)를 병행해야 했다.비쇼넨은 2017년 3월 7일(UTC) 14시 42분 대화.[답답하다]

사용자:Inlinetext

인리네텍스(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)
Inlinetext는 파괴적인 사용자로, 그들은 나와 다른 편집자들이 유료 편집자 또는 양말 퍼펫이라고 비난하고, 나에 대해 인신 공격을 가했으며, 다른 사용자와 전쟁을 벌이기도 했다.그들이 ANI에 참여한 것은 이번이 처음이 아니다.

디프스
워링 편집
길게 뻗은 디프스
더 많이 되돌아오다.
더...
COI 고발
다시 길게 뻗은 디프스
다른 사람의 대화 페이지에
인신공격
그녀의 사용자 페이지에.
대담 페이지에.
다시 되돌리다.
혼란?
—JJBers 15:03, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

아직 조사중이야자세한 내용은 내 토크 페이지의 긴 Q&A(원래 토론 및 관련 AN3 보고서의 일부)를 참조하십시오.El_C 15:27, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

• 엘씨, 오랜 시간 동안 수사 진행을 맡아줘서 고마워.몇 개의 포럼(즉, 여기, TP, 두 편집자의 TP 등)을 통해 수행될 필요가 있는지 모르겠다.어떤 경우든 내 의견은 (1) Inlinetext는 인신공격과 모욕으로 즉시 중단되어야 하며(누군가를 학생이라고 부르는 것을 포함), 그렇지 않으면 편집이 차단될 수 있다. (2) Inlinetext, COI 태그를 둘러싼 전쟁을 편집하지 말 것, COI 편집이 있었다고 의심될 경우 WP에 보고하라.그 일방적인 판단을 스스로 하는 것보다는 코인. (3) 그 콘텐츠 분쟁이 해결될 때까지 문제의 주요 기사를 완전하게 보호해 준 El_C에게도 감사드린다.소프트라벤더 (대화) 15:41, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

• 추가 의견:인리네텍스, 양말 퍼피에 대한 비난은 그만해.WP에 사례 제출:증거가 있으면 SPI, 아니면 없다.나는 또한 ANI 제소를 3주 전의 Inlinetext와 연계시키고 싶다. [36].그것은 Swami Nithyananda에서 Inlinetext를 대량으로 삭제한 것에 대해 언급하고 있는데, 이것은 정말로 경각심을 불러일으킨다; 이전에 기사는 이와 같이 보였다. 그리고 Inlinetext가 매우 선별적으로 내장을 찍은 후에 그것은 다음과 같이 보였다: [38] (그리고 여전히, 일부 추가 공격과 함께) 이것은 WP를 위반하는 것으로 보인다.BLP 및 경계선 WP:공격 페이지 — 소프트라벤더 (대화) 16:09, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

• 골수로서, Parker Conrad와 BLP에 대한 내 노트도 참조하라.El_C 16:22, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그렇다, WP:BLPCRY는 두 가지 사례에 모두 관계가 있다.소프트라벤더(토크) 16:24, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

BLPCRY는 아마도 콘래드의 경우 규제 이슈로 확대되지 않을 것이다.여기서 유일한 이슈는 그가 규제 위반으로 공격을 받을 당시 정확히 파커 콘래드에 대한 유료 편집자들로 구성된 Vipul의 피라미드 네트워크에 의해 매우 아첨하는 기사를 만드는 것이다.이 때문에 규제 COI 고시가 독자들에게 눈에 띄게 내포될 필요가 있으며, 비풀은 자신이 이를 하지 않았다고 인정한 것이다.inlinetext (대화) 22:12, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

WP:BLPCRY는 위키백과 정책이며, 모든 BLP에 적용된다.게다가, 당신은 내가 그 기사의 토크 페이지에서 한 요점을 언급할 필요가 있는데, 그것은 편집 전쟁으로 인해 완전히 보호되어 있다.원하면 여기에 다시 댓글을 달 수 있다.내가 그 기사의 대화 페이지에서 당신에게 보낸 ping 통지문에서 언급했듯이, 신고된 유료 편집의 COI 통지는 기사 자체에 있는 것이 아니라 대화 페이지에 놓여 있다.소프트라벤더 (대화) 22:21, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

(갈등을 편집) 동의한다.그리고 내 BLP에 대한 질문은 Inlinetext에 의해 풀리지 않은 채 남겨진 것에 주목하라.El_C 22:44, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 너에게 내가 실생활에서 바쁘다고 말했어.만약 지역사회가 이것을 서둘러 은폐하고 싶다면, 괜찮다.나는 Vipul이 그 링크들의 '가치'에 기초하여 그 아웃바운드 연결로 적어도 60만 달러(보수적으로)를 벌 수 있다는 것을 재차 강조한다.또 다른 인도 유료 편집자 '위피오네'는 이러한 동일한 과정 하에서, 그리고 지역사회가 2017년 3월 5일 ToU. 22:53, ToU를 따르지 않음 — Inlinetext가 추가한 사전 서명되지 않은 논평(토크 • 기여)으로 수년간 자리를 비웠다.

• inlinetext, 이와 같은 히스테리적이고 총체적인 근거 없는 비난을 계속한다면, 반대로 증거와 중단을 요구하는 상황에서도 당신은 블록이나 주제 금지라는 형태로 제재를 받게 될 것이다.이 실에서 당면한 이슈에 충실하고 사람들이 당신에게 하는 말을 주의 깊게 들어주십시오.소프트라벤더 (대화) 22:59, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
• 이봐, 나도 실생활이 꽤 바빠!여전히 당신의 모든 질문에 답하려고 애쓰고 있다. (내 일상 업무와 주말 휴식에 드는 비용으로)모두에게 스트레스를 줄이기 위한 제안이 있다: 터무니없는 비난을 하지 말고 제3자를 불필요하게 토론에 끌어들이지 말라.비풀(토크) 23:11, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

Parker Conrad는 갈등하는 편집에 있어서 훨씬 더 큰 문제의 증상일 뿐이기 때문에, 나는 이 에피소드를 WMF에 보고하는 나의 편집 전적(및 시간)이 어떻게 '잘못된'지를 볼 것이다. 나는 이 커뮤니티가 공개적으로 유료 편집자 무리의 공동 순서와 욕설 편집을 묵인하고 용인하는 것에 매우 화가 난다.오류를 수정하는 자원 봉사 (무보수) 편집자들은 분명히 여기서 괴롭힘과 매우 달갑지 않은 느낌을 받는다.이것은 당연히 ToU의 문제다.inlinetext (대화) 22:40, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 BLPCRISION이 유죄판결을 받을 수 있는 "범죄"만 다룬다는 것을 이해한다.면허증과 같은 규제 위반은 범죄로 직접 분류되지 않을 수 있다.아마도 (형사재판관이 아닌) 주 규제당국에 있을 것이다.inlinetext (대화) 22:47, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

"나는 이 커뮤니티가 유료 편집자 무리의 공동 편집과 욕설 편집을 공개적으로 묵인하고 용인하는 것에 크게 화가 난다."그 글에는 어떤 종류의 일도 일어났다는 증거가 없다.Vipul은 그것을 아래에 설명하였다.소프트라벤더 (대화) 22:54, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

• 많은 편집자들은 Swami Nithyananda에서 Inlinetext의 편집을 되돌리려고 노력했는데, 그의 대답은 다음과 같다: 오래 전에 구식이고 논쟁적인 뉴스 기사(그는 또한 현재 페이지를 더럽히곤 했다)를 다시 언도하고 출처하는 것이다.일반적으로 대화 페이지에서는 접근할 수 없음.WP:GAME으로 보인다. 172.111.169.84 (토크) 16:36, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

• Swami Nithyananda의 토크 페이지를 읽는 사람은 이것이 엄청난 거짓임을 깨닫게 될 것이다.또한 기사에 실린 내용은 내가 삽입한 것이 아니고 출처가 말하는 것을 반영하도록 세심하게 정렬해 놓았다.그리고, 나는 그 수우르스를 찾거나 삽입하지도 않았다.inlinetext (대화) 22:03, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

그러나 나는 다음과 같은 가능성에 관한 inlinetext의 7번 질문들에 대해 특히 궁금하다는 점을 유념해야 한다."6백만 달러 이상의 페이지뷰를 창출한 위키백과 기사에 삽입된 아웃바운드 링크[비풀] 팀은 개인적으로 60만 달러에서 90만 달러 사이의 금액을 받을 수 있다."돈을 따르는 것도 신중할 수 있다.El_C 16:48, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

내 생각에 WP는 다음과 같다.코인 단골들은 그 조사와 심문을 모두 알아야 한다.@Brianhe, Smartse, Doc James, JzG: (그리고 그들은 내가 빠뜨린 사람을 핑할 수 있다.소프트라벤더 (대화) 17:09, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

내 봉급 이상이야.이건 재단으로 가야 할 것 같아.나는 그들이 유료 편집에 기반한 피라미드 계획을 운영하는 누군가와 행복해 하는 것을 볼 수 없어!가이 (도움말!) 2017년 3월 5일 17:31 (UTC)[응답]

지금 당장은 알 수 없지만 CONE(permlink)에서 그 문제를 밝혀냈다.- Brianhe (대화) 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC) 22:00[응답]

와우, 위키피디아의 피라미드식 계획은 기사가 아니다.음, 그거 좋네.—JJBers 18:16, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 'Guy'에 동의한다.이 사건의 기이한 사실관계는 재단에 가서 재단에 대해서만 얘기하면 된다.그것은 실제로 개인 이익을 위해 백과사전의 품질을 의도적으로 절충하기 위해 유료 편집에 기초한 피라미드식 계획의 사례로 보이며, 이로 인해 WMF의 컴퓨터 서버의 안정성이 위태로워진다.inlinetext (대화) 21:57, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

되돌리는 파커 콘래드 콘텐츠는 나나 내가 지불한 사람들에 의해 추가되지 않았다. 나와의 주된 연결고리는 이 페이지의 2년 된 원본 버전은 내가 나중에 돈을 지불한 누군가에 의해 만들어졌다는 것이다.다시 말해서, 내 유료 편집 사업과의 어떤 연관성도 접선되어 있다; 논쟁에 관련된 사람들은 나와 연관되어 있지 않고, 나는 그들이 누군지도 모른다.당면한 주제(inlinetext의 역행패턴)에 대한 논의에서 벗어나 내 유료 편집프로젝트로 대화가 너무 쉽게 조작됐다는 사실이 슬프다.적절한 포럼(공론적이든 비공개적이든)에서 유료 편집에 대한 질문에 답하는 것은 기쁘지만, 아주 다른 주제(명칭, 인리네테트의 행동)에 대한 토론이 어떻게 본래의 목적을 그토록 쉽고 빠르게 잊어버렸는지 고마운 것은 아니다.비풀(토크) 22시 15분, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

Vipul, 당신은 당신의 유료 편집자들 중 누가 그 기사나 그 기사 토크를 편집했는지 알 수 있는가?그리고 그 기사의 토크 페이지에도 그 정보를 올린다(그 문제가 거기서 제기되었으니)?그래야 이슈를 분리해서 어떻게 진행할지 결정할 수 있다.(현재 편집-전쟁으로 인해 기사가 완전히 잠겨 있으며, 편집할 수 없음)감사합니다.소프트라벤더 (대화) 22:27, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

심피쉬(알렉스 K.첸)은 페이지의 원본을 만들었다.(내가 그에게 지불한) 페이지에 대한 그의 최종 편집본은 이것이다.내가 그에게 지불한 돈은 여기(표 맨 아래 줄)와 여기에 기록되어 있다.보시다시피 당시 그가 만든 버전은 상당히 작고 단조로운 것이 고작이었으며, 논쟁 중인 자료의 대부분은 나중에 편집된 내용에 추가되었다.비풀(토크) 23:08, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

도와줘서 고마워, 비풀.이 두 가지 설명 단락을 모두 기사의 토크 페이지에 복사하여 유료 편집에 관한 실의 하단에 추가해 주시겠습니까?또한 심피쉬의 마지막 편집 날짜와 연도를 기록하십시오.소프트라벤더 (대화) 23:25, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

• 'JJBers'와 관련하여, 이 ANI는 내가 그녀에게 다음과 같이 나를 모욕했다고 지적한 후에야 제출되었다.나는 당신이 화났을지도 모른다는 것을 이해한다." [링크]사용자는 '업셋'과 같은 중립적인 단어를 사용했어야 했다.시투시가 사용자에게 지적한 것처럼 시투시가 격분해 두 번이나 꺼지라고 말하는 등 이 사용자는 논란과 그들이 무능하고 원치 않는 분야에 자신을 개입시키고 있다.나는 이 학생이 가톨릭 사제들이 남학생들을 대상으로 한 강간/살인 및 동성애 폭행에 그렇게 관심이 많은지, 그런 주제에 대해 나와의 전쟁을 엄청나게 길게 편집한다는 것이 매우 의아스럽다.나는 그러한 행동을 지역사회가 아닌 ToU 문제로 본다.이것이 백과사전인가, 레딧인가? 그렇다면 왜 'JJBers'가 시투시를 ANI에게 두 번 꺼낸다고 해서 데려가지 않았는가?나는 지난 몇 년 동안 여기서 무슨 일이 일어났는지 아직 모른다. 하지만 기준, 예의, 그리고 기본적인 예의는 엄청나게 떨어진 것 같다.inlinetext (대화) 22:32, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

인트라넷트, 너는 계속 그곳에서 인신공격을 하고 있다.인신공격은 당신이 보고받고 있는 것이고, 이미 경고한 바 있다: 인신공격과 모욕으로 즉시 중단해야 한다. 그렇지 않으면 편집이 막힐 수도 있다.편집자를 어린애라고 부르지 말고, 단지 "앵그리"를 의미하는 "미친" 영어 사용을 반대하지 말고, WP:그들의 이익에 대한 ASPERSIONs, 욕설 그만 쓰세요.소프트라벤더 (대화) 22:48, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 여기서 반대해야 한다.여기 있는 모든 영어권 편집자가 "미친"이 "미친"과 동일시되거나 내가 미국 영어를 말하는 것을 어떻게 아는지 궁금하다. "미친"이 대부분의 (다른) 영어권 사용자들에게 "정신적으로 병든/미친"을 의미한다는 것을 아는/고려하지 않았는가?그리고 그러한 다른 편집자에게 불온한 감정을 심어주는 것은 분명히 인신공격이다.나는 아마 미국에서도 사용되는 "앵그리"를 위한 적어도 10개의 완전한 시민적 동의어를 생각할 수 있다.inlinetext (대화) 23:07, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

당신은 분명히 그것이 무엇을 의미하는지 정확히 알고 있었다 [39], 다른 성인 원어민 영어 사용자들처럼.엘 C, 나는 이 타임싱크가 충분히 오래 지속되었다고 생각한다. 그리고 지역사회가 더 이상 이 편집자에게 시간을 낭비하도록 강요당해서는 안 된다.소프트라벤더 (대화) 23:14, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

그녀가 "미쳤다"고 말할 때, 정반대의 어떤 징후가 없는 한, 당신은 그것이 미친 짓이라기보다는 화난다는 뜻이라고 직관적으로 추측해야 한다.이제 그런 건 없어그리고 확실히 이 중 어느 것도 요약을 편집하지 않는다.그렇다면, 이것은 인신공격과 암시에 대한 최초이자 유일한 경고로 받아들여라.El_C 01:32, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

그래, 인리네텍스.모든 것이 조금씩 많아지고 있다.El_C 23:00 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

나도 동의해.편집자가 진정하고 협업을 시작하지 않으면 CIR 블록에서처럼 CIR ...을 위해 만들어져야 할 강력한 사례가 있다고 생각한다.소프트라벤더 (대화) 23:04, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 지금 쉬고 있어. Inlinetext (대화) 23:11, 2017년 3월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

:인리네텍스(Inlinetext)는 다음과 같이 몇 가지를 명확히 하고자 한다.
1. 나는 암컷이 아니라 수컷이다.
2.AFD에 가입한 유일한 이유는 그 페이지에서 시작된 ANI 때문이었다.
3. 나는 당신의 기여 때문에 파커 콘래드에 가입했지, 무슨 오프위키 같은 것이 아니었어.
4. 내가 너보다 어리다는 사실을 모욕하는 것은 별로 쓸모가 없고, 미개하다.
—JJBers 02:49, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

어쨌든, 나는 인용 포럼에서 편집 요약은 기본적으로 욕하는 것이라는 이 차이점에 대해 완전히 잊어버렸다.—JJBers 00:01, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

미안해, 코네티컷 노리치 사진을 찍으러 나갔는데 조만간 올릴 거야.—JJBers 00:01, 2017년 3월 6일(UTC)[답글]

• 앞으로는 코인 스레드 또는 사용자 토크 페이지에서만 응답할 것이다.나는 미해결 문제가 해결되지 않을 때까지 "내용"에 관여하지 않을 것이다.긴급한 콘텐츠 문제를 관찰할 경우 토크 페이지나 DR을 사용하여 다른 편집자를 불러 해결할 것이다.JrHeller1과 JJBers가 부득이한 경우가 아니라면 연락을 하지 않았으면 좋겠다.이 커뮤니티가 유료 편집자 무리의 공동 순서와 욕설 편집을 공개적으로 묵인하고 용인하는 것에 대해 크게 분개하고 있는 것에 대해, 이러한 측면은 이제 Vipul의 그룹 맥락에서 CONE 실에 매우 잘 나타나 있으며 Parker Conrad에게만 국한되지 않았다.inlinetext (대화) 10:23, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

폐쇄

내 생각엔 인리네텍트에게 최종 경고를 보내고 이걸 끝내야 할 것 같아.생각나는 거 있어?—JJBers 17:07, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

예, 이 예시를 보십시오.나는 당신의 행동을 무시해왔지만, 오랫동안 서있던 몇몇 편집장들이 당신의 조급함/행동, 어쩌면 물러날 때인가? "우리"? 당신은 관리자인가?inlinetext (대화) 19:36, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

편집자 'JJBers'는 BLP/BLPCRY를 무시하고 배틀그라운드 사고방식을 보여준다.사용자가 삽입한 스캔들 자료를 명확한 편집요약으로 삭제했을 때, 이를 참조하면 경박한 편집요약으로 복원되었다.인용된 (발표되지 않은) 소식통들은 찰스 카 목사가 이 교회 교구의 신부였다고 명시적으로 말하지 않는다(그것은 그가 당시 윌튼에 있는 파티마의 우리 부인에서 신부였다고 말하고 있다), 그리고 그가 주 보호 당국에 회부되었다고만 말하는 "사건"에서 카가 "죄의 발견"되었다고 명시적으로 말하지 않는다.인쇄판도 아니다.inlinetext (대화) 20:03, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

이 파일러에 대해 상호 작용 금지 조치를 취하는 것이 가능한가? — Inlinetext (대화 • 기여) 20:26, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]에 의해 서명되지 않은 앞선 논평

• JJBers, Inlinetext는 이미 이 WP 위에 최종 경고를 받았다.새 섹션을 연 PITY 및 자체 입력.계속 쫓아다니며 괴롭히고 떠들어대면 편집이 막힌다.

  여기서는 상호 작용 금지가 필요하지 않다.필요한 것은 너희 둘 다 서로에 대한 추적과 코멘트를 중단하는 것이다.다른 편집자의 편집 내용을 추적하는 증거가 반복될 경우, 두 사람 중 한 사람이 편집이 차단될 수 있다.자신의 관심사를 따라 다른 곳으로 가서 편집하십시오.소프트라벤더 (대화)20:46, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

  • El C, JJBers는 분명히 Inlinetext를 계속 따라다니고 있는데, 그의 주요 계정인 JJBers [40]과 그의 대체 계정인 JJBers Public[41] 둘 다, 가장 최근의 로커스는 WP이다.코인. 고기 좀 넣어서 탈주자에게 마지막 경고 좀 해줄래?소프트라벤더 (대화) 18:13, 2017년 3월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

완료. El_C 18:36, 2017년 3월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

가능한 범위 블록

안녕. GiantSnowman 관리자와 이야기를 나눈 후 그는 내가 ANI에 가서 레인지 블록(디프)을 요청해야 한다고 제안했다.2a02:c7f:5405:1300에서 시작하는 동적 IP는 Tranmere Robers와 관련된 기사를 파괴하고 여러 편집자에 의해 여러 번 되돌렸다.예를 들어 IP가 여러 편집자에 의해 역전된 리치 서튼의 역사를 살펴보자.관련 기사는 20여 개여서 레인지블록으로 해결할 수 있다면 반보호를 위해 다수에게 달려 있다.블록의 길이에 관해서는 적어도 1주일이 되어야 하기 때문에 편집자는 팀이 경기를 치른 후에야 블록을 업데이트하는 것을 알아차린다.Qed237 (대화) 19:55, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

/64 범위 블록은 다른 사용자를 공격해서는 안 된다.그러나, 나에게, 편집을 되돌리는 것은 아무것도 나타내는 것이 아니다.이 편집에서 그들은 축구 기지에 의해 기록된 외모와 골의 수와 일치했다.이것을 설명하거나 공공 기물 파손의 증거 사례를 제공할 수 있는가? -- Zzuzz^(talk) 20:08, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

@Zzuzzz:보텀 인포박스는 시니어 클럽의 출전과 골은 국내 리그에만 반영되며 2016년 5월 1일 00:00을 기준으로 정정되므로, 그 이후에 외모와 골을 추가하는 것은 사실상 잘못된 진술이다.요즘 많은 편집자들이 이러한 종류의 편집을 되돌리고 있고 많은 기사에는 언제 infobox가 마지막으로 업데이트되었는지 독자들이 알 수 있도록 날짜를 업데이트해야 한다는 숨겨진 메모가 있다.정기적인 편집자는 이것을 반복적으로 하지 않아 차단되었으므로 IP는 그렇게 해야 한다.나는 또한 편집자에게 그들의 동적 IP 토크 페이지(예: 여기와 같은)를 통해 이것에 대해 통지했다.Qed237 (대화)20:28, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

설명 고마워. 2016년 5월 1일, 그건 1년 전 일 같은데, 그래서 우리는 시대에 뒤떨어진 정보를 사용하고 있는 거야?그들의 유일한 불쾌감이 업데이트 날짜를 업데이트하지 않는 것이라면, 그것은 나에게 아무런 문제가 되지 않는다.몇 가지 기사를 확인했더니 숨겨진 메모가 보이지 않았다.아마도 기사에서 정확한 정보를 얻은 다음 현재 통계 근처에 큰 숨은 노트를 쓰는 것이 도움이 될 것이다. --zzuz^(talk) 20:36, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

@Zzuzzz:이런 종류의 기사에 대한 편집 통지에 대한 이야기가 있었는데, 공교롭게도 노트가 자주 누락되기 때문이다.그게 좀 심한가?Qed237 (대화)20:50, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

또한, 트랜미어 플레이어를 위한 인포박스는 현재 정확하다.외모와 골의 수는 Infobox 하단의 날짜와 일치한다.Qed237 (대화)20:51, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

그 정보는 아직 시대에 뒤떨어졌다는 것을 네가 내 요지로 삼았으면 좋겠다.내 의견은 편집자들이 너무 많은 공지를 받아서 공지를 편집하는 것은 거의 효과가 없다는 것이다.대문자로 된 숨은 쪽지 - 관련 장소에 놓였을 때 - 일반적으로 이용 가능한 가장 두드러진 통지서, IMO. -- zzuzz^(talk) 20:55, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

GF의 편집자가 infobox를 업데이트하면 과민반응을 보이지만 축구 기사상의 날짜 매개변수를 업데이트하는 것을 생략하는 편집자(및 실제로 관리자)가 여럿 있다.되돌리기, 파괴주의 경고, 미지원 콘텐츠에 대한 최종 경고, 블록 위협, 이름만 대면 된다.개인적으로, 나는 수정하고 넘어가는 것을 선호한다.나는 더 많은 사람들이 같은 일을 하기를 바란다.그리이스헤드 (대화) 22:07, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

Gricehead의 의견에 동의하라. 그들은 분명히 도움을 주려 하고 있지만 전혀 방해받지 않고 있으며, 이것이 최악의 WP 종류다.물림. 내용이 맞지만 날짜와 맞지 않으면 날짜만 일치하도록 변경하고 무서운 반달리즘 경고 대신 설명 쪽지를 남기는 게 어때?ansh666 22:21, 2017년 3월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

@Gricehead와 Ansh666: 날 믿어줘 사람들은 편집자들로부터 같은 헛소리를 몇 번이고 되풀이해서 고치는데 지쳤어, 특히 이미 여러 번 들은 같은 편집자로부터 그런 일이 일어났을 때 말이야.당신이 그들에게 한 번, 두 번, 세 번, 혹은 심지어 네 번까지 기회를 주고도 그들이 계속되면, 경고를 시작하는 것 외에 다른 방법이 없다.그것은 파괴적이다.Qed237 (대화) 10:05, 2017년 3월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

@Qed237:나는 아직 이 문제를 생각하고 있지만, 생각하는 동안 나는 당신이 문제의 선수들의 인포박스에 포함시킨 논평 패널이 마음에 든다고 언급해야겠다고 생각했다.그들이 작동하는지 보는 것은 흥미로울 것이다. 트란미어는 오늘 밤에 게임을 한다.Europa League가 몇 차례 추가되고 난 후에 Matt Derbyshire에 훨씬 더 낮은 열쇠를 넣었다.그것은 그렇게 성공적이지는 않았지만, 또한 당신의 것만큼 명백하지도 않았다.건배, 그리이스헤드 (대화) 15:04, 2017년 3월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

@Zzuzzz:이 메모는 일부 기사에 효과가 있었던 것 같지만, 모두(디프)와는 거리가 멀다.Qed237 (대화) 21:52, 2017년 3월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

@Zzuzzz:더 많은 그리움 (diff and (diff)Qed237 (대화) 21:54, 2017년 3월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

당신의 고통은 들었지만, 대체로 개선된 모습에 용기를 얻는다. --zzuzz 22:00, 2017년 3월 7일 (UTC)[응답하라]

괴롭힘 문제.

룽선클링카에오 씨

사용자:Eruditescholar

공공 기물 파손/소크푸펫리용으로 사용되는 Facebook IP

우안팔라

이 페이지를 삭제하고 보호하십시오.라지쿠마르 미샤라(배우)

WP에 필요한 도움말:CIR 문제

사용자:Johnpacklambert

• Well, it's certainly enlightening to see that one day one day of pissing off Wikipedia editors obsessed with sports an/or beauty pageants will get you sanctioned, but a campaign that annoyed most of the literate women in the English-speaking world won't. Another display of warped priorirites in our otaku-dominated admin culture. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Avaya1

Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user Avaya1 has continually reverted on the article Ivanka Trump, in an apparent act of article ownership. A discussion took place on the talk page in regards to the infobox photo, and there was no consensus for either keeping the current photo being used on the article, or the proposed photo that several other users have placed into the article in addition to myself. After two weeks, there has been no discussion since February 20, which indicates to me that it is a non-controversial change, and Avaya1 is simply being obstructive and trying to force their version of the article and not allowing others to contribute. After there being no discussion since the 20th of last month, I decided to be bold and re-insert the image, as there was no other significant opposition to the change. Avaya1 is exhibiting edit warring behavior, but I thought ANI would be better to file a report, as there seems to be some apparent and very serious ownership issues. Avaya1 has been blocked twice in the past, including once for edit warring behavior, according to their block log. I'd appreciate administrator input, as I believe Avaya1 to be in the wrong in being obstructive and not allowing several editors to make a change to an article despite there not being consensus per talk page discussions for their position. Calibrador (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are Donald Trump's family members considered to fall under the American politics arbitration case? Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanka Trump and her husband are two of Donald Trump's informal advisors, who he is said to listen to somewhat more than his actual advisors, so I would say "Yes". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that, but I would note there are several notices on Avaya1's talk page warning them about edit warring behavior on several related articles as well, that do probably fall under the arbitration case. So this is probably not a lone incident. Calibrador (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion trailed off about two weeks ago and now we're at just straight up reverting. Why not try getting a firmer consensus through a RFC? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just now left my opinion on the photo, in the talkpage thread. In this case, I agree with Avaya. We don't just knee-jerk go with the most-recent option. We go with the most representative. Plus are those photos the only two options? Softlavender (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, due to her prominence in the Trump Administration, this does falls under ARBAP2, and as such, 1RR applies. I've added {{2016 US Election AE}} to the talk page. El_C 14:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're going to add that then you should probably also note the other restriction: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, good point. El_C 14:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP 194.69.15.68: Kicked over from AIV

• 194.69.15.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – repeated posting of advance-fee scam messages on talk pages, including mine. What makes this a weird case is that the IP is registered to the Swedish municipality of Umeå, so I'm guessing there are numerous people behind this IP address (probably all but one being innocent of this). How do we proceed? Let the administrators of that network know? --bender235 (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: User is in the category: Wikipedia user talk pages of shared IP addresses from government agencies or facilities. HBC AIV helperbot5 (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we kick this over to ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. --bender235 (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can someone with German language skills confirm that it is a scam? My google translate doesn't really make it clear, though even the bad translation looks suspicious. Assuming its confirmed as a scam, I would actually say we just monitor it... If an IP was actively spreading the scam, we would need to block it, regardless of collateral damage. But one post of the scam, that is already half a day old, makes it a lot less clear that blocking would really be useful. Monty₈₄₅ 23:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a native German speaker, but even I couldn't fully make sense of what he was posting. It seemed to me like a some sort of scam, that's why I reported. --bender235 (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's claim that it's a library in Umeå is credible. The user seems to be posting about Deutsche Bank's forthcoming share issue(?). I can't see the advance-fee scam. Not the most coherent editor though.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Monty845: I couldn´t find anything about that offer on the DB website, though I might have just overlooked it. Also the stock price, given at 11€+, is messed up as it gives you a 3-digit cent number ... which would change back the price to 17€+ which is almost identical to the current price on the stock market. The grammar is subpar and several words make, in context and/or sentence structure, no sense. ... GELongstreet (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the country or IP-address they are working from, they're peddling something. Scam or otherwise, that's not what Wikipedia is for. Given edits like this, this, this and this, I conclude WP:NOTHERE. I can't find a single edit by this IP that actually makes sense, in English or German. Kleuske (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just an educated guess here, but the grammar has characteristics of something which has been automatically translated multiple times. The word "elfeurosechhochsechsunddreissig" from this edit is an example: I believe it is an attempt to illiterate the phrase "Eleven Euro, six hundred thirty six", the likes of which tends to be concatenated by translation software if translated into German. I suspect that this is something they found which was written in one language, translated into a language the editor can read by software, then the result was translated into German, also by software. That being said, it doesn't look like an advanced-fee scam, but more like one of the typically vague edit requests we tend to get from new and unregistered editors at protected paged, and on admin talk pages. It seems to be making a claim about Deutsche Bank, something to do with a stock offering to existing stockholders that would drastically increase the bank's net worth. It might still be a scam, purporting to be 'insider information' to prompt editors to buy Deutsche Bank stock using a brokerage firm that the IP just happens to know is completely trustworthy... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, a stock offering to existing stockholders would not drastically increase Deutsche Bank's net worth, and anyone claiming it would is possibly being dishonest. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I said it still could be a scam. But remember, this is the internet. We can't expect every IP editor to actually think things through. It could be a really incompetent edit request. Looking through the other edits on that account makes me lean towards the latter possibility, though the sheer level of incompetence simultaneously makes me think there might be some sort of bot at work (which would both explain the repeatedly-bot-translated grammar and re-imply the possibility of a scam). Either way, the IP address seems to be static, so I think an indef block might be in order. WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE, take your pick. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This German has all the hallmarks of bot-generated keyword strings. Block it. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I would argue from the content that it indeed is a German writing it, but it's bizarre political rants somewhat akin to "sovereign citizens" in the US. Not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. I'll block for three months based on how long back these rants started. Huon (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Sock vandalizing My talk page is wearing me out

Basically since the beginning of my anti-vandal career back in January, a sockpuppet has been vandalising my talk page every week or so with fake blocked messages. This is how I met the sock: I am monitoring RCP, and see something fishy at Betty Logan's talk page; an IP giving a block notice. I go over to her page, and see that this is not the first time an IP has fake blocked her, so I rvv it with the ES "whoop whoop sound of da police". IP tries it again, and mutters buncum about "their rights" and "I have no right to rv their fake block." Standard lies we all have heard. I disabuse them of the notion. Then they try and fake block me 2 or 3 times in a row, and are blocked as a result. I forget about it. Next week, I wake up to another fake block from a different IP. As they had engaged in vandalism before blocking me, I warn them, and report them to ANI. They are blocked. Repeat all the way up today. I want to know if there is anything that can be done that isn't SEMI protecting my page. I don't want to semi my talk page because I need to be able to communicate with IPs per IPSAREHUMANSTOO. I am on AN/I instead of SPI because I heard from Vanamonde93 that you don’t hold a SPI because you can’t CHECKUSER an IP. Can you range block this thug? Or should I just suck it up as part of life in CVU and wish I had followed WP:DENY more strictly? User talk:101.161.174.12

User talk:101.175.20.105

User talk:58.166.91.10

User talk:121.217.215.56

User talk:58.164.3.42

58.164.3.68

101.175.134.41

120.155.57.155

1.144.97.90 Note from 3-7-17 performed WHOIS, all of the above source from Canberra or Melbourne. I saw on of the talk pages some admins saying that they reeked of SlitherioFan2016. I don’t know if this is true or not. The IP asked me once why I had a list of Slitherio’s socks on my user page, but I ignored them. Thanks you your time. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pay any attention, it's only a block notice. It's a somewhat inevitable consequence of dealing with vandals. I don't think a range block is really an option here. I'd personally suggest removing the list of socks from your user page, not writing anything aimed at this user, and not reverting any edit of theirs more than once (and not at all if you can help it). Both WP:RBI and WP:DENY should indeed apply. They'll get bored eventually. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 23:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't possibly rangeblock all of them; they're too far apart. A rangeblock requires us to specify a range of addresses that must all be blocked, and the only way we could block all of them is blocking all addresses that begin with numbers from 58 to 121 — that's 64 of the possible 256 numbers in the first group, i.e. literally a quarter of all extant IPv4 addresses. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I kinda wish an admin would come along, not think that through and just punch in that rangeblock just so I could grab some popcorn and watch the fallout from that. That would deserve a trout so big it has a blowhole and a horizontal tail-fin. But that's beside the point.

I don't think telling a vandal fighter to back off is a good solution. Perhaps temporary semi-protection of their talk page is in order? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, MjolnirPants, that's not a "we can't do that, because it would be too much of a mess and we'd get in trouble"; it's a "we can't do that, because it's not possible". Again, this range would be about a quarter of all possible IPs. mw:Help:Range blocks says that there are 4,294,967,296 possible IPv4 addresses, so we're talking about blocking more than one billion addresses, while the same page says that it's not generally possible to rangeblock more than 65,536 addresses, and the developers would have to get involved by changing settings. Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: I was being facetious, but I'm not surprised there's a hard 2^16 limit on rangeblocks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once option would be to slap indefinite semi protection on your main talk page and create a secondary talk page for IP only editors. At least you'd have better control of your primary talk page. Just leave a message at the top of your talk page telling IP editors where to go. Blackmane (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmane That is a really good idea! One of the reasons I was against semi'ing was this [118] vandalism edit followed a few hours later by this [119] good IP edit. The more I think about having two talk pages the more I like it. L3X1My Complaint Desk 00:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protecting a user talk page, with an alternative, unprotected page for messages from IP editors is really a last ditch solution. This is particularly so for editors who engage in activity that is likely to result in interactions with new editors, such as anti-vandalism work. And it really doesn't accomplish much, as you are then expected to pay nearly as much attention to the alternative page, so your still running into the harassment, just in a slightly different location. Now I realize this approach isn't for everyone, but when someone vandalizes my talk page, I embrace it is a reminder that I'm being effective at stopping vandalism elsewhere. Again, not for everyone, and doesn't mitigate the fact they are harassing you, we just don't have any really good solutions for infrequent but persistent harassment that evades range blocking. Monty₈₄₅ 00:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protect mine sometimes when I'm getting IP vandalism or harassment, and I have an alternative they can use which is noted in my edit notice. But you know what? They don't use it - they generally just go away. I suspect it's because they know they're not going to get the attention they want if they attack a page that nobody other than me is watching and which I can easily blank or delete without even reading. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watchlist your page and I hope others will too. Let's just rv and DENY. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so too; ping me if you need short term semi-protection for your talkpage. Lectonar (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Dude maybe you should change your your sig. "My Complaint Desk"? Well, ya got what you asked for, and how! ^[FBDB] Softlavender (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haaha. Fixed I'll probably change it again soon to something wittier. Is it bad form to be continously changing your sig?L3X1Distant Write 13:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very bad form....how about teletypewriter? Lectonar (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think then people might confuse it for being part of my name, and while I know that some sigs are like that, I want it to be more obvious as I communicate with newer user often. L3X1(distant write) 16:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think you should try "tell me all about it." It has a nice ring. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But then I'd have your's and you'd have mine :) L3X1 (distant write) 22:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Not here to build an encyclopaedia

An editor I hadn't seen before, Rævhuld (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (a word that doesn't mean anything in Danish, a slight change of the spelling produces "Røvhul", though, the Danish word for "asshole", with a pronounciation that is very similar to "Rævhuld"...) popped up on my watchlist after adding a template they had created, Template:Danish English, to an article, claiming it was written in "Danish English". A look at their contributions then showed that they had also created an article, Danish English (with fake sources, since none of the sources support the existence of such a variety), about that imaginary variety of English (imaginary since there are no native English-speakers in Denmark other than a small number of recent immigrants, and English has no official standing there), plus a whole bunch of nonsense categories, such as Category:Wikipedia articles that use Danish English, Category:European English, Category:English-Danish culture, Category:British Danish, Category:British-Danish culture, Category:European-Danish culture, and so on. In addition to adding every single award there is to their user pages, even including Vanguard Editor, in spite of the account only being two weeks old, with 60 edits; their contributions, with a very good grasp of Wikicode right from the start, also show that it's not a new editor. All of it, IMHO, signs of not being here to build an encyclopaedia, only to "have fun", but at the same time not the most blatant vandalism... - Tom Thomas.W ^talk 22:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danish English should be packed off to CSD as an A11. Blackmane (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might I also suggest nominating all of their articles, categories and templates for deletion? Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑ 23:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as a blatant A11 (stuff made up one day). Will tidy up the related nonsense categories etc. now. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fan4Life on Dangerous Woman Tour

I've given multiple warnings to the user about adding out of date information to the article. I have removed the prose about Grande saying she will tour Australia several times, because she said it in September 2016 and the tour has started yet no dates have been announced or confirmed from her, her label or her tour promoter. Fan4Life keeps adding it back and reverting me. I have given several warnings, official and non-official, asking him to stop reinstating it, and to only add info about Australian dates when actually dates and venues are announced. The info is out of date, and we all know what someone, or a singer, says and what actually happens are two very different things. Henry VIII said he loved Anne Boleyn but he ended up beheading her. My point is that nothing has bene officially announced by someone who is official in charge, like a tour promoter. He is now accusing me of ownership, but it's evidently the other way around. He has already been cautioned about ownership with another matter on the article regardless info in the infobox by another editor. — Calvin999 17:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute. I don't see anything on the talk page from either of you. --Darth Mike^(talk) 17:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Mike ARV told me to come here. — Calvin999 17:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999: You have not issued any official warnings, you have issued one caution and several general notes, but not a single official warning. Fan4Life (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a very silly thing to cause a conflict. The singer announced that she will tour Australia, though no dates have been confirmed yet. So just say that, append "...as of March 2017, no dates have been confirmed yet". People are talking about it out there with leaked sources and such, such as here. So it is going to happen, but the Wikipedia just can't list those dates until they are officially concerned. My suggestion is everyone take a breath, update the passage, and life goes on. ValarianB (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued several warnings, but you remove them. 17:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Calvin999: I went through the history of my talk page, not a single official warning pertaining to this. Fan4Life (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether or not there was an "official" warning, right now the best course of action is to get a third opinion. Utilize talk pages, this is what they're for. Also, you both should read WP:BRD and WP:EW, this is a slow edit war and is a blockable offence on both of your parts.--Darth Mike^(talk) 20:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? Here's the official one I posted the day which you removed and here is the unofficial warning which is still a warning from yesterday pertaining to this issue in particular. I can supply you with more from the other issue if you like too? — Calvin999 23:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on the page List of European countries by average wage

Page: List of European countries by average wage (edit talk history links watch logs)
Italy (edit talk history links watch logs) User being reported: Anioni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [[120]] check at how he recalls me on vandalism while he deleted the official EUROSTAT source. ?¿

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [121]
2. [122]
3. [123]
4. [124]
5. [125]
6. [126]
7. [127]
8. [128]
9. [129]
10. [130]
11. [131]

and much more editions, which can be seen in his page, he just changes with redundant sources or even without sources and with fake data, for example he used a website which talks about the politicians wages in 2013, and he changed as he wanted the wage on Italy using that source? I warned him on his talk page and he fastly deleted that [132]

He also changed the economic data of the page of Italy with fake numbers even referencing the official IMF source which doesn't say and support the numbers he gave. I changed those numbers he edited to the ones from the official IMF source and he reverted here my change [133] although another user has reverted his change and from that day he didn't edit that page further.

Anioni (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) – actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. This user is suspected to be the same user as Sad9721, a user which was banned from Wikipedia doing the same redundant editions on the same topics/articles. This time is List of European countries by average wage. He accuses me for being "anti-italian" because I revert his non consensual changes with redundant sources (one source he used was referencing this wikipedia article of the list of european countries as the main source, Wikipedia can't be a valid source for a Wikipedia article!) then changed it to a source which talks about the politicians wages (nothing related to the article) and then putting fake numbers which can't be found even in his sources and he also said that it's data from 2013. I reverted his changes by putting the official EUROSTAT (european statistic agency, official EU organism) numbers from 2015 on it and he keeps deleting those numbers and changing the aspect of the page.

Also threatens me on the talk page of that article that he will delete any of my changes because "I make them without consensus" (while he started changing the aspect of the page in 28th of February without any kind of consensus and putting redundant sources) and because I just use the official data he calls me that i'm "anti-italian" and "aggresive" and doesn't change his mood, again today he not only changed the data of Spain and Italy in that page, he also deleted their official data from EUROSTAT and also deleted the source! Here are the proves. [[134]] this is when all started, after this edition he maded 19 editions in a row in the page List of European countries by average wage which every one of it was an redundant edition without trustworthy sources. Then I changed his editions to the official sources and all started.

In his profile can be seen that he just edits the same topics, I warned him on his talk page and he directly deleted it and keeping in the same mood. He went to warn EdJohnston about "my vandalism" and EdJohnston said the same to him, that I tried to change his mood in his talk page and he deleted it. He also maded editions on the page of Italy by faking the official IMF economic numbers of Italy and changing the numbers while the numbers are referenced with the official IMF source, he changed them even if that's not what the page of IMF says and then when I reverted his edition with fake numbers he reverted mine again! [[135]] and here is the proof when today deleted the numbers of Spain and Italy in the article mentioned before just because he wanted, deleting the official numbers from the official source. [[136]] --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.imf.org%2Fexternal%2Fpubs%2Fft%2Fweo%2F2016%2F02%2Fweodata%2Findex.aspx&usg=AFQjCNEAA0FG1b9JCMBDDzYk9ilnx3nmAg&sig2=4LDurdaFF5U_ZceXp3AvyA This is IMF outlook october 2016 that provides data that i posted for Italy(nominal GDP,GDP PPP,nominal GDP per capita,GDP PPP per capita) and all the world.And this already shows he is totally wrong.May be he posts better references but he is 0 in statistic. I never posted first the reference for Italy that justified 2029€but other people.I'm totally also against Eurostat reference that reports only 100% net earning and NOT average wages as article correctly and IN CLEAR WAY requires.Reference that isn't correct for the article like the one posted by Technician GB is vandalism.Why didn't he add the same refence to Belgim and others that haven't data from official statal sites or not official tax calculators sites?Better writing nothing for Italy and Spain if they haven't official data published by their statal statistic agencies.TechnicianGB should be banned.Anioni (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the topics he edits, the spelling of English he has, and the arguments he use (vandalising, anti-italian, etc) makes him a potential clone of User:Sad9721, which was a sockpuppet of Mediolanum Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mediolanum a well known italian user with 59 potential clones. I will also warn about sockpuppetry on this user as it's probably the same one, the reasons are clear: changing the sources to redundant sources from the same page List of European countries by average wage, then adding fake data and then finally deleting the actual data. That's exactly the same what the user Sad9721 and Ambidibody did, another sockpuppet of Mediolanum. That, added to his English skills, the arguments he use, and that he edits lots of times the same comment it's very suspecious and acts exactly the same as Sad9721 and Ambidibody, both banned from Wikipedia. --TechnicianGB (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now he personally attacks me and tells that "he taught me a lesson" and "i'm a total ignorant and I try the last bullet possible". On this edit [137] any edition is doing this user is more suspect to be a sockpuppet from the users mentioned before. Same manners, same spelling, same arguments. --TechnicianGB (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to open a Sock investigation if you have suspicions of abuse of multiple accounts. I've warned the user about personal attacks and incivility El_C 14:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hidden vandalism

User:TechnicianGB added a reference^[1] for Italy and Spain a reference that report only 100% net earnings and NOT AVERAGE NET WAGES as the article requires.Read it well.So the article now presents creative numbers posted by him as net and gross wages.He didn't set the the reference aside Belgium and other states that haven't as reference official statl sites.Many states haven't also statal official tax calculators.Bu he didn't care of it showing a strong anti italian behaviouir (check his history in talks).He should be banned because he realizes well his propaganda vandalism.The reference for Italy and Spain must be removed because totally WRONG.Anioni (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anioni, I moved your post here because it is part of the same discussion. Softlavender (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add: Anyone can remove the subheading if desired, I don't know that this assertion needs its own subsection. Softlavender (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.People must go all the way about this reference used for vandalism and propaganda.Here people look a lot to the form and not at what people writes.And vandals grow accusing others in wrong way to be sockpuppets.My sense of justice looks for a final redde rationem for this vandal that uses hidden references to make propaganda and that to defend himself uses attack and accuses others of phantom things.Anioni (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't refer to edits by users in good standing as vandalism. And please avoid incivility and personal attacks. If you are having an intractable content dispute, list an RFC, or try the Dispute Resolution Notice Board or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. El_C 14:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,i wrote in RSN to solve the situation.Anioni (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What situation do you want to solve! this is unbelievable.

[[138]] look at this edit, you deleted the official EUROSTAT source to put a newspaper which talks about the politicians wages and clearly invented a number for Italy. Are you trolling us? Do you really accuse me of "vandalism" while you changed the consensus aspect of the page List of European countries by average wage in 28th of February? Here is the proof [[139]] your last edition on the page was deleting all the data, like Sad9721 did, someone which was editing the same articles as you, the same topics, and with the same accusations/spelling as you. It's clear that you're the same user. Now today you vandalised again the page Italy by putting fake data, an user reverted your changes and warned you in your talk page. What you did? As with my warn, you just deleted it! Here is the proof [[140]] anyone can see in your contributions which kind of contributions you make, for God's sake! You accused me to be a vandal, to be "anti-italian", to be an ignorant, anything and you're still here editing anything you want lol i'm really amazed so whatever, do whatever you want i'm tired of this! It's senseless. I proven what all you did and you still keep denying it and trying to charge me. After you changed the aspect of the page and I just reverted your changes! Unbelievable. --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spyware link on Middle-earth in film

Overt threat

Two customers fighting in aisle seven

Non sense tags

Job satisfaction

User:Crissedcrossed

Long term WP:SPA and WP:COI by Suranadira (relisted)

ISIS welcome in SRO23s name

User:Vjmlhds

Possible WP:LTA case

Mass creation of mostly empty articles

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this isn't a thing. User:Xfactor1234 appears to have created over 750 articles of YEAR in COUNTRY television, most of which appear to be almost entirely empty articles, and on the face of it, seem like they should at best be categories. We may need an orbital nuclear solution here. TimothyJosephWood 14:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timothyjosephwood: I agree. Several weeks ago, after a discussion with several administrators on IRC including Oshwah it was decided that Xfactor1234's articles on "<YEAR> in French television" would be deleted. Unfortunately this spate of useless article creation is repeating itself. I suggest deleting the articles and ensuring that they cannot be created again, at least by the user in question. We need to nip this in the bud before it escalates to a Sander.v.Ginkel scale problem. DrStrauss talk 15:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be on board with this, but I have a "devil's advocate" question - are we deleting only their creations, or similar ones like 1986 in television which are virtually identical but created by others? Primefac (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god. So that...exists. Personally I think the whole lot should probably be categories, but I may not have a majority opinion on that. They pretty well qualify as indiscriminate lists, and don't seem to serve any purpose other than duplicating a category in mainspace. TimothyJosephWood 15:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am seriously concerned that the user does not engage in the discussions whereas they continue editing. May be they should be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a pretty serious ABF, but I did wonder for a second if it might not be automated. TimothyJosephWood 15:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If not completely automated, relatively easy to make semi-automated. Copy/paste and then change the dates with find/replace. I don't think it's ABF to assume that they're not really paying a lot of attention to what they're doing. Primefac (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[183]--Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the user's talk page suggests that they are unwilling to engage in discussions concerning problems with their editing and therefore it is fair to assume that they are uninterested in learning how to improve their contributions. In response to your question Primefac, I would say that because such articles, although light in content, are not country-specific and therefore offer global coverage adding to its value in an encyclopedia. I think a block and a deletion of all relevant page creations by the user in question would be a fair and just measure, particularly considering that they appear to offer little dissent. DrStrauss talk 16:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Primefac also in response to the global question exemplified with the link you put forward I think it would be astute to note that other nation-based year-TV articles rarely go earlier than 1990 as there is little content to provide while Xfactor1234's articles go back quite far and act as mere placeholders. DrStrauss talk 16:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. User talk:Xfactor1234

@Ymblanter: I think that the flippant message immediately above shows how uninterested this editor is in sensible discourse. DrStrauss talk 17:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let us wait a bit. I do not think our primary goal is to block the editor, it is to solve the problem. If they are not interested to be a part of the solution, fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting mainly in response to Primefac's question re: cases like 1986 in television: those should be relatively easy to deal with on a case-by-case basis via PROD, and if it becomes controversial, via an RfC. On the case of these articles, what we are essentially talking about is another CSD X criterion, which I am not sure you could find broad consensus for because in theory, these articles could actually be useful if they weren't created in what appears to be a semi-automated way. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's determined to be a detriment, the mass deletion of their creations can simple link here. No need to have a new CSD criteria. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I wouldn't oppose that so long as it was clear that the mass deletion was in response to these specific creations of the articles in a mass unsustainable way. I still think that PROD would be the best way to deal with dab pages mainly linking to these articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. the trivialization continues. The editor just drops stuff in--if a show ran in 1983, that's apparently good enough to count as an "event" in the article of that year. A fascination with the Eurovision Song Contest is always questionable, and that's much of the content of the articles I looked at--I don't even consider that a "television-related" event; it's an event on television. By extension each and every single thing that happened on TV would be worthy of inclusion. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I agree, I think lots of these types of article are very flimsy in their interpretations of WP:OUTLINE. DrStrauss talk 18:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: PRODs would be unnecessary as the consensus here is akin to a mass AfD. DrStrauss talk 18:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For articles by Xfactor1234, yes. For articles like 1986 in television which have edit histories from significantly before Xfactor, no. You'd need to either PROD them on a case-by-case basis or have an RfC on "Years in television" to deal with them more generally. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: ah... yep. Read that too quickly. DrStrauss talk 18:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the other articles should be deleted, but I also agree that this is probably the wrong venue for that discussion. TimothyJosephWood 21:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redflag A quick search of their contribs reveals this user is employing a "fly under the radar" technique which many other have used to continue editing in ways that are not helpful. They just don't respond. The adding of the word "hi" to this page was the first time they have ever edited in project space, and the fist time they have spoken to another user at all in nearly two years. They have never edited their own talk page to reply to the 67 different tissues brought up there over the course of the last ten years. You can't edit in a collaboratie environment if you refuse to speak to anyone or consider that your creations may not be desirable. A block seems overdue, as is often the case witht users who employ this tactic. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the above, someone block, we can wait to see if there is dissent on the deletion. TimothyJosephWood 02:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The flippant remark is unhelpful, but they haven't edited since then. I'm going to hold off on the block button in the hopes that their next edits will begin to address some of these legitimate questions. If they return to business as usual without doing so, any admin will have my support for blocking. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• @Timothyjosephwood, Primefac, and Ymblanter: how is this deletion scheme going to materialise then? DrStrauss talk 11:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  As much as I hate proposals, I think the best way is to get a simple yes/no poll going on whether these edits are helpful or harmful. If we can get some sort of supermajority in the "yes" camp, then we can just go through and mass-delete. If there's serious opposition, then we'll probably have to go through AFD. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I would go for WP:AfD--Ymblanter (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ymblanter: straight away? If so, is this a manual process or is there some whizz-user who can use the API somehow? DrStrauss talk 18:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Call for dissent

I'm not asking for support for mass deletion, because I think that seems fairly common sense. Instead I'm asking if anyone, at all, has any argument whatsoever for not deleting these. This is one of the most watched pages on the project, and so surely if someone can formulate a coherent argument, this would be the most favorable place to preserve the articles. If not, then I think we can probably push the big red button and be done here. TimothyJosephWood 00:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, an AfD would be unnecessary in my opinion and considering the magnitude of the situation I think this onus shift is a good idea. DrStrauss talk 08:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac and Ymblanter: ^thoughts? I was going to ping you in in the first message but because of the limitation of the template a new message was necessary. DrStrauss talk 12:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for dissent is a good idea. 1 week deadline? Primefac (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac: Monday 13th high noon? DrStrauss talk 13:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a notice at WT:AFD in case anyone there wants to weigh in. TimothyJosephWood 13:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No Objection, with the caveat that only the articles created by this editor are subject to mass deletion. Obviously, the other similar articles that predate Xfactor's articles should be evaluated on the merits, individually. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• If we are only talking about articles created by one user I am fine, but even in this case I would advise users to be reasonable and to not delete articles if they are not supershort stubs.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Objection - Sorry gang, I get the annoyance here, but this absolutely seems like the wrong venue for this. This wasn't a ban evasion. It wasn't vandalism. It wasn't sock puppetry, COI, POV-pushing, etc. Mass creation without discussion is a baaaad idea, but there has to be a really good reason for deleting them all that isn't simply that the same user created a lot of them and that they're or poor quality. This user contributed based on an existing format -- one that's perfectly sensible within the context of the thousands and thousands of years-based and country-based navigational lists. That they are incomplete isn't a reason for deletion, nevermind deletion without discussion at the regular venue(s). Honestly I don't know if I would support deletion if I saw this at AfD or an RfC, but this isn't the place for it (i.e. not a good place to make calls about whether a particular type of page -- one that preexists this user -- should not exist if it's incomplete or if the same user started lots of them. At least not when the behavioral aspect of the scenario doesn't absolutely call for deletion of hundreds of articles). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually let me clarify something. If the user was explicitly warned to slow down and/or asked to engage in discussion before continuing, and pushed forward nonetheless, I don't object to the subsequent creations being deleted. That, to me, would place this in the domain of behavior rather than content. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Upon further review (which, admittedly, I should've done before tacking on this clarification), there wasn't such a warning. Some users gave advice, but he/she wasn't asked to stop/slow down. I also note that it seems like this user is being characterized as having [possibly semi-automatedly] created these 750ish articles in a short span of time. 17 were created on 3/4, 30 on 2/20, 27 on 2/18, 74 between 1/25-1/26, 15 on 1/16, 19 on 1/15, 17 on 1/9, and so on, with the activity starting more than two years ago. That's a lot of page creations and a lot of time that has gone by to now say "too many of them aren't good and should be deleted". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem as I see it is two fold:

1. The issue is not that the articles are of poor quality per se; it's that they're basically empty, for the most part are merely duplications of their own empty categories, and for the most part are duplications of each other, empty as they are. They are almost certainly semi-automated in at least as much as copy/pasting is a type of automation. More so, looking back more than a year to 2003 in Turkish television or 2016 in Israeli television the articles are basically being created and abandoned, and languishing in their own walled garden, which is probably exactly how this went on so long without someone finding it.
2. Although the user has edited since this thread was started, and are definitely aware of the discussion, and been asked twice on their talk to contribute here, not only have they said nothing, but they literally have never engaged in an article talk page discussion in ten years, and have never contributed to any discussion ever other than their single one word comment on this thread, and a single post three years ago.

The two of those combined indicate there is likely a larger issue here. The articles are probably the largest walled garden I've personally seen so far, and the user doesn't seem willing to communicate with...anyone...about anything. TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's empty, it can be CSDed. If it's not empty, and does in fact contain scant encyclopedic or navigational content, then it's, well, not empty but rather a stub, incomplete, poor quality, or whatever we want to call it. It's not automation to copy/paste for the purposes that are relevant here -- it's just an obvious part of creating many similarly formatted articles. If you're going to set about creating such pages, what sense would it make not to copy/paste? Of course, copy/pasting content beyond data, structure, etc. brings with it other procedural issues. Regarding abandonment, as with any other page, there's no policy that says that if you create a low quality article/stub, you must go back to improve it. Agreed that #2 is super problematic, and I'm not weighing in on what measures should be taken based on the behavioral issues here. I'm just saying that the scenario is not one in which mass deletion of all of this user's work is called for. IMO the best course of action would be one that addresses this type of article in general (probably via the Years or Television WikiProject) and establishes criteria for their creation. I would certainly endorse a route that required higher standards to justify this sort of thing, and in that case these could be deleted. I'm very familiar with the woes of sprawling, poorly maintained lists; my point here isn't to say "these are good" -- just that deletion isn't justified by the behavioral issues, so typical deletion criteria/procedure should apply. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to slap a RFC banner on this discussion to try to attract more participants, or start a AFD discussion if the venue is problematic. Would either of these fixes address your concerns adequately? Tazerdadog (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think mass AFDs would be more productive than a month-long discussion that will invariably end with no consensus except to send everything to AFD. Some of the categories would be straight-forward "delete as empty" (such as the pages in List of years in Israeli television), so if the consensus is largely that they should be deleted, but not here and not now, then I'll start working on the mass-noms. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends. mass AfD nominations often go sideways and wind up wasting a lot of time. As I mentioned above, the best thing to do would be to address the creation of low quality navigational articles in general and to establish guidelines for their creation such that it isn't acceptable in the future to create such a page to house one or two factoids. To me, an RfC (at another venue, since it's not actually about the user that is the subject of this thread) makes the most sense, or at least a non-RfC discussion framed as such (rather than around a problem user, who is a problem user but not such that it should affect deletion [at this point]). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, let me double-check this - you think it's better to ask "should we create articles like this?", and only mass-AFD after said discussion comes to a conclusion? I mean, it makes sense, and I know there's no deadline, but it sounds like unnecessary bureaucracy. I don't particularly care either way (I have a funny feeling one way or another the vast majority will be deleted), just want to make sure I don't waste my time (via either route). Primefac (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: To be clear, I'm not saying that I see AfD as an inappropriate avenue. I'm skeptical that it will yield a useful outcome, but I may well be wrong. I do think it's unlikely AfD will address [what I see as] the most important issue, though, which is how to set minimum standards for this sort of article (and, by implication, the fact that many were created with quite low standards). I think people should proceed exactly as they would if these were problematic articles that weren't created by the same user, because I don't think the user's behavior lends to deletion of all his/her work at this point (and saying "well they're not very good, either" as though multiple not-so-great-but-not-that-bad problems compound to effectively undoing the entirety of a user's contributions. I.e. if the behavioral aspect doesn't demand deletion (and I argue it does not), then there's not much point to consider this user's articles in isolation when there are a whole lot of various year/subject/country sorts of pages that are similarly underdeveloped. There are many ways it could go, of course, but IMO if AfD, it should really be the lot of these sort of pages with this sort of problem (not just created by this user). If I create some year/country combination that this user didn't create, and do so in a similarly lackluster fashion, that should be the subject of what happens next, too, because the problem is having these pages, regardless of how they were created and who created them. That's why I say coming up with some criteria would be useful, such that it not only addresses these articles but potentially this format other year/subject/country format articles and the creation of those articles in the future. But anyway, I appreciate that just deleting them is considerably easier/more straightforward, but there needs to be a really compelling reason. "They kind of suck, and now that we say they suck you're not saying anything" is not a compelling reason. I'm ranting a bit, I know. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, and I can see where you're coming from. From an AFD perspective, I wasn't going to say "this user created these pages and they're terrible," but something more along the lines of "The pages listed in List of years in Spanish television are empty, and are generic lists, blah blah blah". Having seen plenty of mass-noms, though, I can appreciate the extra "oomph" of saying "<link> discussion said these types of pages aren't practical, hence I'm nominating for deletion." I'll start thinking about the options. Primefac (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of years in Israeli television. TimothyJosephWood 18:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks against an RFC poster

Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15#Request for comment: add three instances of criminal use is an RFC posted by an IP editor. The RFC is brief and neutrally worded. Editors who oppose the proposed text have posted personal attacks on the IP editor, claiming on the one hand that he is a an illegitimate sock and on the other hand that he is a single purpose editor. @Springee: has had a long battle with this IP editor. Sockpuppet investigations were closed without conclusion. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughD/Archive). These comments have no bearing on the issue or the content discussion, so I deleted them. I was reverted by @Niteshift36: and I deleted them a second time, with an explanation.[184] My question here is: Are purely personal comments and SPA tags appropriate in a content RFC? Was I wrong to delete them? Felsic2 (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of another clumsy revert, my comments have been deleted and the RFC has been deactivated.[185] I don't want to edit war on a talk page, but this is unhelpful. Felsic2 (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no personal attack. The RfC was never properly completed any way, so it's not accidentally deactivated. And I've restored the proper discussion to the talk page and warn Felsic to stop removing others comments from a talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are purely personal comments and SPA tags appropriate in a content RFC? Generally, if the editors had issues with the IP, or suspected them of being a sock, they should have gone to SPI or somewhere like here, not disparage them on an article talk page. Since the IP was an open proxy, and since AFAIK most people use dynamic IPs anyway, having their first edit being an RfC is...well...actually pretty meaningless either way. Even the IP had a lengthy anon editing history, it just as well may have been different people editing on the same IP in the absence of more compelling behavioral evidence.

Was I wrong to delete them? A lot of times that's an individual judgement call. Even in cases where personal attacks are obvious and even egregious, edit warring over removing them often exacerbates the situation more than the personal attacks themselves. Per guidance at WP:NPA, Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it.

But at the end of the day, the botched reversion that closed the RfC has been reverted, and I'm not sure there's much needed in this thread other than advice. May want to keep Wikipedia:Help desk in mind in the future, unless you are seeking specific sanctions that require broad community input and/or administrator tools. TimothyJosephWood 20:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The SPA tag was wholly proper and should never have been removed. The fact was that was the ONLY article the IP had edited. The SPA tag simply states they've made edits in only that or few articles. Again, entirely proper. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was an open proxy. The tag was meaningless. TimothyJosephWood 20:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't matter if it's "meaningless" or not. It shows the casual reader that it's an SPA. In addition, the tag was not incorrect or inappropriate. There was zero reason for the removal, let alone the repeated removal. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are multiple new accounts or IPs voicing the same opinion (a typical sign of sock puppetry), there is probably no need to use this template; the user should probably be addressed personally instead.TimothyJosephWood 10:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Gee Timothy, that's a great, unnecessarily long piped link. How about if you link me to the policy or guideline that says it is improper to use it and should be removed by an editor, multiple times. Do you have that? Because refactoring other editors on talk pages has a pretty narrow scope. Until you do have something that fits that scope, the placement was proper, the removal was improper and no amount of "probably" and "should" will change that. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

m:Don't be a jerk ... no piping. Just for you. TimothyJosephWood 17:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry if you're "triggered" because someone doesn't buy your smoke and mirror show. I'm sorry that you feel the need to be right, even when you actually aren't right. If you don't want people to treat you like a jerk, don't treat them like a jerk. Long piped link, just for you. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the editor did file an SPI and it was closed without reaching a conclusion. Making the same charge repeatedly, and even routinely reverting edits and talk page posts, seems like a case of casting aspersions, which the ArbCom has disciplined for violating. WP:ASPERSIONS.

Adding personal attacks, and repeatedly restoring them, doesn't seem like a good way to conduct an RFC. The talk page guidelines WP:TPG, specifically cover this issue and those guidelines say to avoid talking about other editors. Felsic2 (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't a personal attack, so your excuse fails. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put this another way: An editor editing through an open proxy IP address may (in fact almost certainly given the circumstances) have an editing history unrelated to that IP address. As you cannot prove one way or the other if the editor was solely focused on that subject, you cannot label them a single-purpose-account as you have no clue what their editing history is. An open-proxy IP is not an account. And in fact, by indicating they are a sockpuppet of another user, unless that user is demonstratably an SPA, its an unfounded personal attack. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if they only have that history for a day, it's still their history. I can show that IP has only edited that article. They are, demonstrably, a SPA. You can't show they've edited anywhere else. I didn't post the sockpuppet allegation under discussion, but I did post the SPA tag. You can't show that editor edited anywhere else. (BTW, the tag says this or "few other" topics). This is exactly why registration should be required. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin guidance please

I am really not sure how this situation should be handled, but I am uncomfortable with people striking RFC !votes [186], adding SPA tags [187] (especially when the discussion above shows very little support for that), removing comments [188], and cluttering up an RFC with off-topic accusations of sockpuppetry [189] when there has been no positive SPI and no official determination that the IP is HughD. Is this how we normally do things?

For context, there is some discussion here where The Wordsmith seems to have been convinced that the IP might be HughD, and there was an inconclusive SPI here but nothing "official" as far as I can tell. Can we get an uninvolved admin to take a look and decide whether or not this IP's contributions are a case of WP:DUCK or a case of WP:AGF? Seems like this needs to get settled one way or another. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The SPA tag has nothing to do with SPI or a sock allegation. There doesn't have to be a finding of anything. It merely shows that the IP has edited in no or few topics other than this one. That is factually correct. None of you have shown it's not true, so put the whip away. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've already (and repeatedly) stated your opinion on this above. But my question involved more than just an spa tag (ie, striking votes, deleting comments, sock accusations), and I'm asking for someone who is not already involved in this dispute to comment. No "whip" here, whatever that was supposed to mean. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Whip means stop beating the dead horse. There's no violation or policy prohibiting the tag. So making it part of your "concerns" looks like trying to stack the complaint to make it seem more than it is. (Much like listing a lot of sources that don't address the topic under discussion.) Since you included it, I'm addressing it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you always this combative? You're being way more adversarial than the situation warrants, both here and in the RFC. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you really want to start making this a conversation about personalities? You can ask that, but when I ask if you understand the issue, you lecture me about civility? [190]Would be happy to discuss your hypocrisy if you want to start discussing personalities. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was a response to your behaviour in the RFC as a whole, and in this ANI thread, not just your reply to me. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So? You act like you're being civil, yet you feel free to comment on the editor and not the issue, acting like it's fine. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's really an open proxy, the !votes and comments should be struck, whether or not the {{SPA}} tag is appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I looked at WP:PROXY and while it does suggest that proxies can/should be blocked, it also says that "while this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." Hence the question (ie, is this is a "legitimate" editor or not). Fyddlestix (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The proxy is blocked. So what is the point of that comment? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I explained that pretty clearly in the post you're replying to: WP:PROXY does not suggest that someone's comments/!votes should be struck because they were editing through a proxy. In fact, it seems to suggest the opposite (that their contributions should be presumed valid, assuming its not vandalism or block evasion). If I have missed some guideline/policy that says otherwise, please point it out to me - if not, and in the absence of an SPI/admin finding that the IP is HughD, then this should be reverted, the IP should be allowed their !vote, and people should not be removing their comments. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If the IP is blocked, the vote should be struck. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editors here seem to be confusing WP:BLOCK with WP:BAN. They are two different things. The open proxies have been blocked, but there's no confirmation that the editor using the IP has been banned. Comments by banned editors may be removed. Comments from merely blocked editors should not be. Felsic2 (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So lets see if I can sum up where we seem to be here:

1. The SPA tags probably weren't necessary
2. Removing them probably wasn't either
3. Neither is probably worth this drawn out conversation
4. Either party could and should have dropped the stick, regardless of where it fell
5. The RfC seems to be steaming along nicely, despite the apparently Earth shattering crises of an SPA tag
6. Unlike this conversation which is pretty clearly going nowhere, and should probably be closed before people wind up getting gratuitous links to essays on civility, which will probably only make things worse.

Did I miss anything? TimothyJosephWood 16:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You forgot the part when you jumped into commenting on the editor instead of the issue yourself. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations abound at List of Intervention episodes

Hi, any assistance here would be appreciated. The copyvio issues are pretty well embedded in the edit history, but it appears that much of the episode summary going back years has been cut and pasted from the network's or other websites. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:D5FA:9AFC:6E2B:8DD (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn, not another one of these articles loaded with copyvio. I took out a chunk, plenty remains. I don't know where the "Epilogue" bits come from... could someone watch the show and check against the narration? MER-C 12:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MER-C. It looks damn tedious, and like a lot of these articles, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the summaries were copied. Somewhere a TV Guide writer is missing a royalties check. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Air Beijing and Kuala Lumpur routes

Infinite block

Unwarranted aggression to other editors from Digitallymade

• Digitallymade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone uninvolved, with a soft voice and a large stick, please take a look at this before it gets out of hand. Digitallymade (talk · contribs) is a newish editor (2k edits, 4 active months) who is "failing to get it" in some important ways. Nearly every edit seems to be a variation of edit-warring, followed by user talk comments of the form, "you are a fool, your edits are so wrong they are vandalism, I know this".

• User talk:Francis Flinch#You have seriously screwed up 5.56x45mm Nato
• talk:Winged Brick#You have made a mistake, twice.
• User talk:Felsic2#Pump Action Shotguns
• User talk:Thomas.W#Why did you remove the history section on 6.5x55mm Swedish Mauser

Their view on WP:V / WP:RS is also a little unusual, User talk:Digitallymade#Sources, "I have examined many "sources" and have found many of them to be inaccurate. I've been working at this for about 30 yeas now. I typically use sources ONLY because I cannot state that I know something to be true as that's not considered authoritative. So I use sources that I judge to be accurate enough to support certain points. Unfortunately, a HUGE amount of published material is in error. I know enough to be able to tell the difference in the areas that I have studied for the last 6 decades."

Yet this is from an editor who can't even spell the name of their own new articles IMR Lendary Powders, opposed the deletion of the mis-spelled version after it was renamed, then PRODs the original article before their WP:CFORK: Talk:Improved Military Rifle. As to their "merge all firearm articles to one" suggestion [191], that was fortunately rebuffed early and without too much waste of time.

Even without going into the technical aspects and underlying facts, this is very far from good, or even acceptable editing practice. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For my aggressive attitude, I am very sorry. I'll endeavor to do better in this regard. I am frustrated because I find changes I make being reverted while I am editing. It takes a few hours to thoroughly update and correct many of these geriatric pages and at some point I get tired and stop. I do make typos, an your mention of that is as improper as my aggressive behavior. When I make suggestions is talk, and then changes based on those suggestions the next day I get my change reverted. How much time has to pass before I can correct some of the inaccurate statements on pages. I added a history section to one page which was removed almost as soon as it was entered. I make extensive changes that take HOURS to research and someone reverts every change because they a problem with one small part of it. Some individuals are constantly interfering with corrections and amplifications as if there is vested interest in maintaining incorrect, incomplete, and outsourced articles. I promise I will be less aggressive, but I also see a need for fair treatment. Why are some of my edits being interfered with while I am making them? Why, for example, is ever change I make on gas operated removed immediately (except for last photos I just added)? I hope you understand that I don't talk to people because things are running smoothly. I talk to them because my work has been altered, because what I do primarily is intended to improve the subject (especially when it's a completely new page) and my goal is to create logical, readable, truthful, and useful content. If this is wrong let me know. I am completely willing to withdraw entirely, as I have before for the same reasons. Digitallymade (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may make some suggestions based on observing and interacting with you:

• Please read, and reread until you understand them, the basic rules of Wikipedia. Start with WP:Five pillars. Read the three core content policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR and a core behaviour policy: WP:NPA.
• Slow down. Major rewrites of mature articles should not be undertaken lightly.
• Listen to what other editors say. If they undo your edits or object then start discussions.
• If an edit might be controversial consider discussing it before investing a lot of time.
• Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If you approach editing with the view that everyone here is wrong or stupid (even if they are!) then you'll get frustrated.

Wikipedia is an very unusual project. Not everyone can work in this environment. But if you take your time and learn the culture then you should be able to contribute more successfully. Felsic2 (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The editing style, aggressiveness towards other editors, believing they always know best, not listening to others, and now adding a "disputed" tag to an article just because of there being a link to an article they want to move but can't since the move is opposed, reminds me very much of indefinitely blocked user TeeTylerToe... - Tom Thomas.W ^talk 15:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long term, repeated, false allegations by Activist

Activist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the course of 3 years Activist has repeatedly made allegations, across several articles, that I am editing on behalf of the GEO Group. He has been told numerous times that I am not and warned that allegations like this are a form of personal attack. He has tried to play the semantics game, using things like "If we apply the "Duck test," where would that lead us?" in an attempt to claim he didn't actually make the allegation or tries to link me to edits made by the company 4 years ago. As the ARBCOM noted, WP:ASPERSIONS are a form of personal attack: "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes." Tracking down all the examples would be time-consuming, but a few of them are:

• "...you operating in the interest of those executives, officials or stockholders who deserve no confidence or respect."[192]
• "...essentially and exclusively mounting a corporate reputation defense, whether or not you have a COI." and "If you have some alternate explanation, why it is that rather than contributing useful information, you consistently and exclusively delete massive quantities of data that may in any way be construed to reflect poorly, particularly on GEO, but also upon those others whom you've chosen to champion."[193]
• "You've presented yourself as a neutral editor, in the spirit of Wikipedia, but in fact you seem to be adamantly opposed to balanced presentations of this corporation, and you minimize the corporate whitewashing engaged in by others for GEO"[194]
• "I note, Niteshift36 that you've made 38 of the last 107 or so edits to the GEO page, since Cohen was outed. If we apply the "Duck test," where would that lead us?"[195]
• "I further note that you've made 32 edits to the GEO Group main article, with the last signed edit by Abraham Cohen being made February 20th, 2013, though the GEO IPN was used to make subsequent sock puppet edits not long after but before you started your signed edits." (note: I've always signed my edits and never edited as a IP)[196]
• "I should have noted that since you began editing the GEO Group article, almost four years ago, after GEO employees using their own names or making IPN edits were outed, you've made about 80 edits to the article."[197]
• "You're desperately trying to whitewash and obscure the corporation's sordid history and to lead people away from any solid understanding of GEO's business mode" [198]

Some examples of a clear denial of COI editing:

• "I do not work for GEO or any of their subsidiaries, never have and have NEVER made an edit on behalf of ANY company." [199]
• "I am stating, very clearly, that I have never worked for GEO in any way shape or form."[200]

Aside from denials, warnings and invitations to go to ANI if he had evidence of the allegation, Activist was warned [201] on his talk page. Yet this continues. I hope that Activist doesn't turn this into a wall of text complaining about content issues and actually sticks to the issue: Can an editor repeatedly make an allegation, either directly or by aspersion, over a long period of time and get away with it?Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Notified of ANI here [202]. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI your link in the title and in the body to Messrs Activist instead redirect to the letter U. The ping template is {{u username}} . L3X1(distant write) 18:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually pinged him on purpose. He has a wrong-headed belief that it is necessary to ping someone every time there's a response and that not pinging them is somehow a form of incivility or trying to "hide" something...and then I screwed up the template. Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Primefac (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What we have here is clash between two editors with very clearly defined interests/POVs - here is Niteshift's "edit count" and here are Activist's. These two have been tangling for a while per the interaction analyzer.

Both have written nasty personalized things about the other's intentions. Niteshift document's Activist's above but see this (Stop thinking like an activist with an agenda and start thinking like an encyclopedia editor. and this (whole thing). And see this COIN thread from 2013 about actual (disclosed) COI editing by GEO Group, in which Niteshift wrote this and this about their perception of Activist's advocacy.

Niteshift has odd ideas about NPOV per this where they seem to state that WP should be "fair and balanced" and give the company's response to a report about a nightmare prison they ran. That's odd. And this edit they made, related to that comment, was reverted here with an edit note by User:C.J. Griffin with an edit note "removing POV pushing by right-wing editor)".

In any case this topic arguably falls within the American politics DS since Obama ceased use of private prisons and Trump has said he is reinstating their use. Niteshift was notified of the DS in June 2016 here. Activist was given notice of them here at about the same time.

For now I would propose that both of them be warned to not comment at all about the other and limit their comments strictly to content, not contributor at article talk pages and in edit notes. If either breaches that, this should be brought to AE under the DS a TBAN or IBAN should be applied as seems appropriate. Activist should also be warned to stop repeating accusations of COI in various venues and to face an indefinite block per WP:HARASS if they do it again; bringing a single case at COIN after a single inquiry is the route to pursue. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute I've been less than civil from time to time. This is not about neutrality or content. It's about the same, repeated allegation, being made. This does not fall under the American politics DS just because a politician did something involving it, so trying to apply that to either of us is off-base. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Activist, but, FWIW, I've repeatedly had to ask Niteshift36 to stop making personal comments and, ironically, casting aspersions.[203][204][205]Felsic2 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Then if you're not familiar with the topic under discussion, why are you discussing it? Or was this just an opportunity to express your dislike of me? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift, DS are in place to deal with topics where we get advocates on both sides of some issue behaving disruptively; it is obvious that the politics each of you have are what is causing this long-term dispute between the two of you and is currently disrupting articles related to GEO. I am very confident that if I brought this to AE the case would be accepted there. I have proposed something to address your concern about Activist that I think is reasonable; your own behavior is of course examined when you post at ANI. We'll see what others think about the recommendation I made. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't think that the DS applies. You recommendation isn't a bad one. I know my conduct hasn't been perfect. I won't pretend that I've been all sweetness and light. Yes, there are days where I say something uncivil or use a "damn" or something like that. And that's why I don't run to ANI every time someone is a little uncivil. This, however, was a bit different. It has been a systematic, long term allegation and that's the main reason I brought it here. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Niteshift36 has written that I have accused him or her of being in the employ of the GEO Group corporation. I've never done that. So his or her response is that I've thought that, or something, and should be held accountable for what he or she's read in my mind. (Just like her or she has determined my gender.) In fact I don't think that he or she has been. I ran across another editor, CFredkin, whose history and behavior convinced me that he or she did exactly that, complained about it for years to administrators on line and at a Wikimedia conference, and no one seemed to be vaguely interested. I'm virtually certain he or she was previously banned for COI edits, then came back without taking a day off, to do exactly the same thing, with that USER name. He or she worked 9-5, M-F, and if I had spent an hour analyzing his or her edits, I could have told you when and how many weeks of annual vacation he or she took, before CF's most recent banishment for massive sockpuppetry. (And, I presume, the adoption of a new USER identity as the rent still would need to be paid and food put on the table.) Niteshift36's behavior isn't remotely like that in many aspects. However, his or her edits to the GEO Group article, and to the articles about prisons they've operated, and about their one-time parent company G4S, back in about '03-'04, have been precisely the same. So my observation is that his and their interests, removing edits documenting troublesome and persistent corporate behavior, to the articles, in undeniably coincident. I'd never seen before the wonderful tool posted by one of those editors or administrators weighing in here above on this situation but it is illuminating. It documents exactly what I gathered was N's behavior and what I had stated. Rather than improving the article via additional contributions, N's done essentially nothing but massively delete. These are N's edits to the GEO article in the past four years: User:Niteshift36 (ec) 80 Number of edits:80 Added:+96 Deleted: -65,989

−

• • Now I think it might be helpful to look at an example of his or her stated reasoning for making deletions:

−

• • Congressman Ted Deutch, whose field office is in Boca Raton, where GEO's corporate offices are located, was seriously disturbed by consistent reports regard the maltreatment of non-criminal detainees at GEO's Broward Transitional Center. He wrote a letter to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), requesting an inquiry into those conditions of confinement. Dozens of his colleagues signed on to it, and to a follow up, after the ICE director ignored his request for three months, and perhaps 60 signed on to it four months after that. Here's how N characterized his or her reason for repeatedly deleting references to that letter, that had been posted by a number of other editors, about which deletions I'd commented one time:

−

From the AIJ report: "Nonetheless, 26 U.S. House members signed a letter to ICE Director Morton in September 2012 complaining of lengthy detention periods and medical mistreatment at BTC. Organized by Rep. Ted Deutch, whose district encompasses BTC, the letter urged a 'thorough case-by-case review' of each BTC detainee. Three months later, the Congressman followed with another letter noting the 'excessive delay' in responding and hoping that the reviews had been 'completed or nearly completed.' Finally, on Jan. 9, 2013, Rep. Deutch received a response that he believed to be inadequate. To our knowledge, case reviews have yet to be undertaken by ICE." Activist (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

−

• • Now this situation was repeatedly commented upon by a host of reliable sources, such as the Palm Beach Post, the Miami Herald, the Sun Sentinel, etc., which editors included. N responded:

−

In July, 0.5% of the congress (24 of 435) signed a letter "expressing concern" about the facility. They didn't do anything else, just write (sic) a letter. In November, an advocacy group claimed "hundreds" of people went on a hunger strike. ICE said it was actually 30 people. So that's 0.15%. And then it was short-lived, less than 2 weeks. Yes, there are reliable sources, but WP:NOTNEWS reminds us that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". So we have something that only .5% of congress cared enough about to sign a letter (but do nothing else) and a short-lived event that involved 0.15% of illegal immigrants at a facility. For those reasons, I see no reason to include it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

−

• • This is characteristic of N's typical fallacious or purported reasoning for deletions of unwelcome pertinent information in articles. If one congressional representative wrote or signed on to a letter, it would be news. But when dozens do, N minimizes it, and claims that "0.5%" of the Congress signed, when it actually was 5.51%, an order of magnitude larger than N contended. My spouse and I have both been ill, we've had visitors making deliveries, and I have to drive to town, so I'll have to end this here for the moment. But I do want to make one last brief comment. N when he or she finds another editor refuses to capitulate to demands, has often launched into a stream of vulgarity. It's not remotely "damn," and stops just shy of the ten-letter C-word that got Lenny Bruce arrested. I can provide many examples if anyone cares. I have pleaded for a very long time that N contain those instincts, in the interests of civility and comity, with no positive response. Activist (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The above post tells us a lot. As you can see, Activist essentially repeats the COI allegation, spending time outlining the issue with the person who actually did work with GEO, then trying to link me to it. Forcing us to wade through the content dispute that I predicted Activist would try to start, he (I'm not going to play the he/she game. If you're not a he, just say so and I'll correct it) manages to pretty much support my original point. Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's probably worth noting that I'm not the only one who feels like the allegation has been repeated: "You repeat the allegations of COI even as you deny you have been doing that" [206]Niteshift36 (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Observation from uninvolved editor From my quick reading of this Activist has not accused you of paid COI editing but rather unpaid political advocacy editing which would not seem to be an entirely unwarranted allegation. For example, you say that Activist has accused you of "desperately trying to whitewash and obscure the corporation's sordid history" - where in that allegation is an allegation of paid COI editing? It is clear to me that is a disruptive ideological dispute. Your userpage is filled with political userboxes such as demonstrating support for concealed carry of firearms, opposition to "political correctness" and claims to be a "demonised conservative". It is unsurprising an ideological dispute has become heated but I can't see any evidence to support your claim that Activist accused you of undisclosed paid editing. It is also clear you have tried to remove cited material from articles relating to the company under dubious pretences. AusLondonder (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, for some of those observations to be accurate, you really would need to get into it deeper. Merely being cited properly doesn't mean things get included. Other "disputes" are over the length of items that Activists insists on re-telling at length in multiple locations. In cases like that, information isn't being "hidden" or "whitewashed", just not repeated at length. As for my userboxes...if you're going to cite them as a reason for an opinion, please at least be accurate. For example, I don't claim to be a "demonised conservative", I stated I am a conservative and don't understand why some have demonised that word. You may not think that's important, but I do think the difference is relevant. I'm also a Star Wars and South Park fan....If you can't see the WP:ASPERSION issue with "similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes", then I guess you don't see it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that not all sourced material is automatically suitable for inclusion. I cited your userboxes purely to show that from what I can see this is some kind of ideological dispute between two editors. As shown above you have questioned the motives of Activist yourself. In another diff provided you also sought to suggest particular citations regarding alleged misconduct by the company were discredited because the authors were allegedly associated with George Soros, a perennial and cartoonishly over-used hate figure for some American conservatives. Regarding WP:ASPERSION you specifically accused Activist of accusing you of "editing on behalf of the GEO Group" but now seem to be changing that to just casting aspersions and you have made aspersions against Activist yourself as shown in the diffs provided above. AusLondonder (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have questioned his neutrality. The language he uses in discussions strongly indicates a passionate position about the topic and a flair for hyperbole. I challenged a specific source that was more of an opinion piece than actual journalism and tied it to the authors being linked to Soros. The question makes sense since much of the prison housed drug offenders and Soros advocates for drug legalization. I think you have ASPERSIONS a little backwards. Saying that I feel your not being neutral isn't contrary to ASPERSIONS, if I tried to link you to editing on behalf of someone else, that would be contrary to it. So yes, I do believe Activist has an agenda, but I believe the agenda is his own. We can argue neutrality all day. We even have a noticeboard for that. But I have invited Activist a number of times to take his allegations and insinuations to ANI or COIN. He has not. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just woken up, the fever I had yesterday has broken, and the advice left here by other editors and read yesterday has percolated overnight. I'm very new to the ANI process but think I have a much better understanding of it now. I don't think I've ever been knowingly involved as a disputant in the process, before (I may have overlooked the "may have" warning or warnings as actually involving me, without having gone to the page and answering). I'll be back shortly to present my position in a more acceptable and understanding fashion. Thanks to everyone for their advice, patience and counsel. Activist (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, you can't remove the post. Per WP:REDACT, once the post was responded to, you can't just remove it. You may strike through it, but since subsequent responses by others refer to what you said, removal changes their responses. Your removal was reverted by another editor [207]. That editor came to your talk page and told you that he reverted it and why [208]. After a discussion, you came back and removed it again [209] with an edit summary that wasn't exactly accurate. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revision delete

Please go to the history of User talk:Huji, find the two edits I just undid, and rev-del their content (which contains curse words in Persian). huji—TALK 04:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huji: Probably not gonna happen unless you provide some more details. Curse words aren't generally enough for rev-del. Outing attempts, threats, and copyvios can usually be rev-delled, and it's understandable if you don't want to elaborate on exactly what was in that comment that you want removed from the public record, but the problem is that very few admins speak Farsi, and since the text in question is in the roman alphabet, machine translation software won't recognize it as the language that you say it is or as any other language. Your best bet would be either to be more specific as to why you want a rev-del, or find a Persian-speaking admin who can see what the vast majority of ANI watchers (myself included) can't. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed recently that Google Translate (if you open the full website) now will first give you the option with Persian to convert the Roman alphabet to the Persian script. And then it can do a translation - which is a rather non-sensical "Arab Korea shark Nnt you son of a bitch mother Jundi", but probably gives us an idea of where it's going. Nfitz (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. Thanks Nfitz. Revdelled as "purely disruptive material". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reggiewray01's bad page moves

Reggiewray01 (talk · contribs) has been warned repeatedly to stop making controversial page moves but has continued to do so. In this most recent cluster of moves, they moved the Talk:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling talk page to Impact Wrestling LLC but left the main article at the old name. They then moved several sister articles to different names despite a recent RM (closed by Andrewa) deciding against this.LM2000 (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LM2000: Do you need an admin to fix the undiscussed moves? If so, can you please list the pages and the title of where they should be? --NeilN^{talk to me} 20:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that everything can be set back to where it needs to be without admin help but I'm concerned that Reggiewray01 will move the articles once they get back where they need to be. This is the third time they have moved Impact Wrestling this month.LM2000 (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note to his talk page strongly encouraging him to participate in this thread. Any more undiscussed moves on his part will result in a block. --NeilN^{talk to me} 20:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaand blocked three days to prevent further disruptive editing. [210] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Community Sanction Violation

user unfairly keeps reverting my changes

People are now LAUGHING at Wikipedia

wrong information of user name

This is Nsmutte. GAB^gab 00:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat

IP editor signing another user's name in AFD discussions

Could use help with a range block

User talk:86.141.246.169 has repeatedly removed a shared IP notice for no reason I can discern. User:K6ka restricted this user from doing this and just now, the person hopped to User talk:86.142.69.194 to keep up the nonsense. Is 86.141.x.x too big a range of IPs to block? If so, can both these IPs get the boot with both talk pages semiprotected for a bit? (I know where WP:AIV and WP:RFPP are; problem is, requests for extensions on ongoing blocks and page protections seem to get wiped by bots and I don't know what sort of Wikipedia-fu I'd have to use to prevent that. When I crabbed about this to K6ka, they recommended I come here.) CityOfSilver 16:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two IPs you mention are in different ranges.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the 86.141.246.169 talk page for one month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: This is true. Dopey little mistakes like this drive me nuts but if I mellow out and accept that I'll probably keep making them, will I ever figure out how to stop? CityOfSilver 17:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is User:Iniced who always does this to addresses they've used. Some things are really not worth fighting for. Fighting to retain a notice saying it's a BT address, when there are several links at the bottom of the page which say it's a BT address - waste of time. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 17:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I don't see the point in tagging IP addresses belonging to big providers - the BT pool has millions of addresses available. When the IP belongs to a particular small pool that might be regularly used for vandalism (i.e. schools, libraries) then fine, but otherwise it's not particularly worth wasting time on. Black Kite (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful little edit war going on at Stephon Gilmore.

The subject of this article is in the news regarding a reported signing. Information regarding the signing may be based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement, but editors continue to disregard this and edit the subject's team details anyway. I requested page semi-protection, but that has only partially quelled the problem. I and User:CityOfSilver continue to revert edits. I'm applying WP:3RR exemption seven regarding BLP articles, but erring on the safe side and reporting to ANI. I will stop reverting if asked to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDragonFire (talk • contribs) 14:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IT looks like it has already been protected, so there is really nothing else for an admin to do. --Jayron32 15:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamjamesfox, Jetrex3, Jimmygrove, and CavsRule123: Please STOP adding unsourced information to the article. TheDragonFire (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheDragonFire, while reverting edits without sources is fine, I personally think the reversions you made to some edits that cited a source were inappropriate (i.e., Jetrex3 citing CBS Boston). Once a major news outlet states that he has signed with another team, I think it is fine to mention that in the article. The template at the top warning that the information in the article might be inaccurate is sufficient to note the signing isn't fully confirmed by the teams themselves. I don't think that template should be used as a justification to remove information that is cited to a reliable source. Calathan (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Calathan:Jetrex3's reference (diff) failed validation when I visited the URL, which brought up something unrelated not from CBS Boston. Now that ValarianB has provided a suitable source, I think we're all good here. TheDragonFire (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the template from the top, since the signing is confirmed. DennisPietras (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it looks like he must have linked the wrong link. Sorry about that, though I'm pretty certain the story was actually on the site, just mislinked (and I had also seen it on ESPN). Calathan (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, pretty strange. I was pretty sure my citation included an accurate source for URL. The website that I went to was pretty accurate but the link wasn't. My bad. Jetrex3 (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deciduous Maple - off-wiki recruiting, edit warring, and other problematic behaviours

Jason Zhuwao

User:Yosoloeditocosasporarreglar

WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR issue

Concerning userpage

Another possible suicide threat

Edit that should probably be rev-deled at an AfD

Another concerning userpage?

Mystic Ballet

Copyright violations, sock?

I would like to delete my talk page...

What appears to be threats by User:Caula

This user says "you'll end paying" which IMO appears to be a threat. Much of what they write is difficult to understand though. They also appear to be refusing to use references. Not sure they have the temperament nor ability to continue to edit Wikipedia. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more offended by "see you later, crocodile". It's "see you later, alligator" and "after while, crocodile"! --Darth Mike^(talk) 20:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's "in a while, crocodile!" Jeesh. EEng 16:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd. I think the implication is "if someone uses Wikipedia for medical advice, and gets screwed over because of an edit you made, you'll be sued". That sounds less like an actual threat than a general statement of "gee we should fix this", but as mentioned it's almost unintelligible anyway. Primefac (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hm, they did that in the context of edit warring to keep unsourced content in Obsessive–compulsive disorder diff and also after having left this weird note at Doc James' talk page: diff. They also left this weird post at the Talk page of the article about Doc James, James Heilman after Doc James reverted this unsourced edit at Panic attack. Not sure what is going to take for Caula to understand how WP works. They seem very committed to their version of reality. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, the issue in 'see you later crocodile', a change, yes, from a very well know sentence, known from a rock song, but existing before, just a joke, is that we will continue talking, no evidence could be provided that this is a threat, and please explain me how can anyone 'threat' somebody who apparently is not in the same continent, I continue thinking the deletions were too strict, of the insert of definitions of: 'social phobia' and: 'anticipatory anxiety' in the panic attacks article, as well as the reference to a text by Sigmund Freud, and a note in an Spanish anatomy textbook, it were pertinent, well referenced in the Myelination case, and no need at all to reference in the literature what: 'social phobia', and: 'anticipatory anxiety' are.

If these definitions are pertinent to the panic attacks article is doc xxx's opinion or mine, I have no evidence that his medical credentials are better than mine, he has the mouse and the keyboard from Wikipedia, but this doesn't exclude the possibility of making a mistake.

If somebody made a mistake, wrongdoing is not same as evildoing, it's an act of friendship remarking the mistake, this is not an insult, as long as you don't want to give an image of being immutable and out of error as the Almighty, if editions to mechanical engineering are admitted without a reference, a box appears many times next to it: 'reference/ citation needed', don't know why the same couldn't be applied to medical articles, the comments about patients and readers being deprived of an useful information should be considered in the realm of 'support propaganda' to the edit, in the benefit of readers, and an indication to editors of being cautious, if something is not harmful, it's probably good, and as no direct patient contact was involved, no chances of a 'malpractice suit'. The interpretation of the Isaiah text the one who deleted it made is out of my knowledge of English language, I passed an US English as Foreign Language test long ago, even if my wording are far from being Shakespeare's, or Mark Twain's, changing wordings in articles is an activity open to everybody in Wikipedia, I have an understanding of it enough for my needs, and in the Isaiah text, I was not the one who was wrong. Have a good season, regards, + Salut--Caula (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Envale

Envale is a prolific creator of really poor biographies. The talkpage is full of advice, none of which has been acknowledged, and none of which has been heeded. I moved the latest 2 to draft for improvement but a quick glance at the contributions shows many, many more that need attention. The WP:CIR issues aren't being addressed through talking, a block seems required to get some response. Cabayi (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would also probably be wise to require Envale to go through AfC until they have proven they have acknowledged the advice given to them through improved content. Perhaps move their articles into draftspace as well since notability seems to also be a major concern.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of them- the various historians at least- are probably notable; unfortunately the editor seems to have a penchant for choosing the worst available sources. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This editor refuses to take any advice - they are still using the {{official website}} inappropriately having had this pointed out to them several times (see Elizabeth Hampsten for an example); they still cite their references as bare URLs (poor but tolerable) placed in square brackets so that they aren't visible in the reference list (really bad style, pointed out several times) (see same article, early version before another editor came to the rescue of the references); they still list authors' books with no date, publisher, ISBN (same article). All 3 problems still present in Draft:Edward DeLos Myers which they created today. Getting things wrong once or twice is learning. Repeating the same mistakes over and over is WP:IDHT or something, and this editor is not at present an asset to the encyclopedia, creating such poor articles that they require a lot of time from other editors to become anything like encyclopedia-worthy. A bar on creating new articles would be a benefit to the encyclopedia. PamD 19:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought our advice was beginning to be heard when this article appeared today with dates for the books (no publishers or ISBNs, but that's a start) ... but then found the later Edward Parmelee Morris and Arthur Richard Shilleto where s/he's back to bare lists of book titles. PamD 14:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• support TBAN from directly creating new articles; they can appeal in 6 months showing successful creations through AfC. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• support TBAN + 72 hour block - there's been no response to this ANI thread nor any improvement in the creations since it started. A short block to get Envale's attention seems necessary. If the tools keep working, Envale will keep going without any regard to TBANs, ANIs or anything else. Cabayi (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if they are still creating articles-? Then, immediate (short) block, as it is bloody well rude to carry on, in the face of a community discussion, without a by-your-leave, sir. Their attention needs to be caught- by the short and curlies. TBan for further discussion. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seven poor articles created today! One has caught my eye - I'll do a bit of work on Erika Pohl-Ströher, though I see that another editor has already fixed the references. PamD 15:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier for admins to take quicker action if the editor has been notified of discretionary sanctions. I've done so and added a warning which in effect says they'll be blocked if they continue to edit in the same way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for 72 hours to slow down the user's creation of poor biographies, and because they have failed to acknowledge or heed any of the concerns on their talkpage. They can be unblocked if they respond constructively to my block template. Groan, NeilN... I'm sorry, I didn't see your warning — I was fiddling with my note for the block log for several minutes, and Twinkle obviously didn't care that I was edit conflicting you. That's unfortunate. Note, though, that they have never edited their talkpage. Bishonen talk 16:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• @Bishonen: No problem. The DS note will quickly allow us to enact longer restrictions if the block expires and they fail to respond appropriately. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• NeilN, I wanted a permanent link to this discussion for the block log first, and for some reason, nowadays, ANI sits chewing the cud for almost five minutes before producing one of those. Extremely frustrating — I always feel another admin is probably forestalling me while I sit waiting for that link, and this time it happened. Anyway, the discretionary sanctions alert was a good idea. Bishonen talk 16:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@NeilN: ... Though only a certain proportion of their creations are BLP and therefore involved in DS - most are long-dead. It's difficult to find a suitable set of warning templates for "generally rubbish editing", though I used the "UW-MOS" templates to give first and second warnings about abusing the "Official website" template, and might have got up to level 4 by now if they weren't already at ANI!. PamD 16:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of a delete of contentious material Perse School

In good faith @Peteinterpol: intervened, 11:37, 12 March 2017‎ Peteinterpol (talk contribs)‎ . . (32,942 bytes) (+607)‎ . . (Undid revision 769774537 by ClemRutter (talk)Restored reliably-sourced content that meets Wikipedia Notability guideliness.) I have reverted this as I see this as 'gossip' which cannot be verified- citing WP:BLP etc. Could an experienced admin, glance at this and make a judgement. And refer to user/oversight if it needs be this. I will take no further part.--ClemRutter (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think BLPCRIME may be invoked here, seeing as the teacher wasn't actually convicted (or even charged or indicted) of a crime. Not to mention issues of verifiability. El_C 10:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing at AfD

In this AfD, User:Bus stop refuses to stop badgering all who comment. This is despite at least two (one (mine) and two (another IP user)) pleading requests to let the proces play out. He or she has a long block history, and I would suggest that another short one is warranted here, as they have pretty much ruined the AfD.198.58.158.1 (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is a passionate editor making a point to save an article. He has not said anything rude and has made some productive responses, even if it doesn't go his way. This did not need to be brought here; if you do not like his ideas, simply stop responding to them.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that while their actions may be categorized as disruptive (they were asked to stop), they also made some productive responses (if prolific). I can also see that banning does not work on this user. I agree with the verdict and the punishment of the silent treatment. Endercase (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An important point is that art galleries get deleted in some instances when notability is adequate. This occurs because sources focus less on the gallery and more on the exhibitions, the artists, the art critics. Bus stop (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just point out that Bus Stop has only replied to people continually because they were willing to keep up the argument. If you don't like what he says, don't reply to it. Simples. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDHT and WP:IDLI

Wikihounding, personal attacks, incivility

User:13lasagnae

Vipul's paid editing enterprise

NOTE: references to a blacklisted website have been replaced with v***pro.com here so that the thread could be archived. The website is vi$apro.com (replace the $ with an "s".)

Fashion Architecture Taste

Percy Allen De Zylva Karunaratne

Legal threats yet again from the same IP

Topic ban for Wiki-Pharaoh

Jytdog linking users to names....again

Just so folks know, I cleared that before i posted it, to be sure it was OK. and please note that i did not actually say that the user is the person. it might be a case of IMPERSONATE. I am being careful. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NotTheFakeJTP at Sasha Banks talk page

Murder of James Bulger

Possible promo editing

User Druddigon Requests a Standard Offer

Vipul's paid editing enterprise archived?

Issue with editor making unfounded accusations

Check on David Rozenblatt

I was about to log off when i ran into this highly promotional revision of the page David Rozenblatt and ended up cleaning it up a bit. A quick check of the content indicates there is a lot of BLPRelated though: quite a few claim to notability seem to be unrelated to David Rozenblatt as a person (eg: He wrote the music for a ballet piece that won the "Best Actress" award or he was a member of an ensemble that was nominated for an award). The added sources - aside from self-published ones - seem to dedicate a line to him at most and a quick google search seems to turn up absolutely nothing which is quite unusual seeing the sheer amount of notability claims in the article.

The article on my list to look into sometime later this week, but if someone would happen to have a few spare minutes to have a look at this (If just for a sanity check - it IS rather later for me after all!) it'd be appreciated. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivankola block evasion

User:Ivankola was blocked on 26 February for spamming, but they had also been warned for BLP violations (by me), verifiability, disruptive editing, and vandalism. It appears that after being blocked, they continued editing while logged out as User:145.236.37.151: the Editor Interaction Analyser shows edits on dozens of pages in common. I'm not surprised to see that User talk:145.236.37.151 is also filled with warnings going back to 14 October 2016. They also appear to be editing as User:109.121.243.26 (dozens of articles in common), so I'm sure there are more. Since check user can't connect editors with IP addresses, is there a better way to find and block these IPs? Would this be a case for WP:SI even without CU, or WP:RFPP? Woodroar (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK might be of help to this one, if it's as obvious as you suggest. MM('"HURRRR?)^(Hmmmmm.) 11:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivankola and 145.236.37.151 have the same method of playing around with BLPs. For example, Ivankola fills in an unsourced birth_place, changes the location, and removes it. 145.236.37.151 adds, changes, removes on the same article. I am less sure about 109.121.243.26. Even though they have edited literally dozens of the same articles, they have dissimilar types of edits so any proof is coincidental. I struck that accusation accordingly. Woodroar (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ODEL

ProDuct0339 WP:NOTHERE

And again the Tube Challenge vandal with his legal threats

Envale

User:WilliamJE

Sanity check , Spanish speakers definetly welcomed for this one

Repeated edits and reverts against consensus

We're deep in the middle of college basketball conference tournament season, which means there's a lot of editing of various pages dedicated to the tournaments as the games are being played. Per consensus within WP:Collegehoops, as tournament brackets are filled out, a logical flow from one round to the next is maintained as the team routing into the next game from the "top" of the bracket flow is placed in the top of the next matchup, while the team coming from the "bottom" is placed at the bottom. I found one brief discussion in WikiProject College Basketball talk archives, and the behavior of nearly every other editor indicates that this is indeed the consensus.

What appears to be a single editor disagrees, however, and has been repeatedly changing the brackets in cases where there has been an upset, "flipping" the pairing so that the higher seeded "home" team is always listed on top. This defeats the diagrammatic purpose of the brackets, breaking the logical flow of following how a team has progressed from one round to the next. The editor has even going back to pages from conference tournaments in previous years and making these changes.

This apparently single user has been using several IP addresses and at least one registered account, and based on the condescending edit descriptions and talk page messages the user has left, they apparently have no interest in following consensus or engaging in constructive discussion.

Some of their behavior likely falls under 3RR, but because the edits span several dozen pages, there is a larger issue here that makes it difficult to centralize discussion.

Summary of problematic accounts I've seen in recent days:

• 72.23.91.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Example diff. I reverted that change, and the editor reverted my revert with an edit note of "that this kid keeps messing up." The issue was raised three times on the user's talk page, once by another editor earlier this week and twice by me, and it was not until this third notice that there was any sort of response from the editor. That response appeared on my talk page and was automatically signed as from a registered user:

• BHenne59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user's response on my talk page earlier today of "not gonna happen" showed no willingness to discuss the issue. Later in the day, it appears the user began using another IP to continue with the behavior:

• 12.168.218.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Example diff. User Tewapack was also attempting to clean up from this user's edits, and the user continued to revert to his or her preferred style, referring to Tewapack as "that idiot" in an edit note on this diff.

I made one more attempt to engage with the user, posting a message on BHenne59's talk page again pointing out the consensus and the multiple other editors having to clean up his or her edits. The user responded to me with "you aint gonna win brother," again signaling no interest in abiding by consensus or discussing the issue.

I apologize for the amount of information here, but it's a bit of a messy situation given the multiple accounts/IPs being used. Any guidance on the best way to handle this would be appreciated, as it is a tremendous amount of work to continually clean up these issues on so many pages with a user this stubbornly refusing to adhere to consensus, and even with multiple editors trying to do it I'm approaching 3RR territory myself. Thanks. WildCowboy (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be sanctionable, I think you need a clearer consensus than a brief archived discussion between two editors and your subjective analysis of "the behavior of nearly every other editor". If it isn't sanctionable, it isn't an issue for this page. I'd suggest forming that clear consensus as a first step. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I'll try to garner a fresh round of feedback from the WikiProject members to help establish consensus. WildCowboy (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss:@WildCowboy: I'm sorry, what do you mean? This user is clearly WP:SOCK ("Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address") and WP:CIVIL ("belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts") and is in violation. How is that not sanctionable? Endercase (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These IP/Single use account edits defy logic - a reader expects to see sport tournament brackets flow from left to right so that winners visibly advance. Please use common sense, it's doubtful anyone thought this situation needed a specific consensus discussion, but if it's needed we certainly can. The user (and I'm sure it is the same person) is essentially just trying to create havoc. Rikster2 (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just want to note for the record that the user being discussed here deleted this ANI discussion and then proceeded to continue disrupting brackets yesterday. We've been able to achieve additional consensus on how brackets should flow. I suppose no direct action is needed at the moment, and hopefully things will wind down as the conference tournaments are now over, but I think it's important to have everything documented here should disruptive editing resume. -- WildCowboy (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Winstonview repeatedly advertising his firm

Reporting trouble with the page Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). User:Winstonview has used this page to advertise his legal firm of ambulance chasers with a link to his firm's website. His user page makes this connection obvious. The page he is linking to is designed to appear as an official CICA website: it is not.

On each of the four occasion that he has added his commercial link to CICA it has been reverted with a comment to the effect that links to commercial sites are not to be used in this way, but he continues to add it back in. This has happened as follows:

1 2 3 4

He had edited only two pages, his user page (itself practically an advert for his firm) and CICA, but following my second revert he has taken to going to pages in which I have had some involvement and deleting material with the comments "Removed commercial external link" (White Waltham Airfield), "Removed commercial link to a hotel" (Edward Hain) and "Removed link to commercial photographer site" (Popham Airfield). Emeraude (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the link is problematic and should not occur again. The removal of the other links were good edits on their own but the wikihounding aspect needs to be addressed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note aforementioned user just attempted to remove this very listing (without an edit summary marked as minor edit, no less), which I have cautioned them against. El_C 13:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not quite a legal threat, but somebody ought to remind him of that policy, for the future. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Kleuske (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Kleuske, I came here to thank you. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After he's unblocked, he reverted the edit again to his version. I've reverted his edit based on what User:ScrapIronIV told him to not restore the content without adding source. I've responded to his comment at my user talk page about this situation. --Stylez995 (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he reinserts the text again without getting consensus, please let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FkpCascais and 23 editor.

A while ago I participated in a RfC [279] along with two other editors, FkpCascais and 23 editor. RfC's topic was whether Djokovic parents' ethnicity should be included in the article. The mentioned two editors voted against inclusion with the following reasons.

FkpCascais agreed with another editor whose reasoning was: "right now it says nothing about the nationality of either parent because it's not notable enough to do so. That's how it should stay. It doesn't really matter if Djokovic's parents are Serbian, Croatian, Russian or Mexican since this article is about Novak, not his parents or grandparents. They are named and that is plenty. And if it's even remotely controversial then it's even more reason to keep it out."

23 editor stated his reasoning: "his parents are both Serbian (one born in N. Kosovo and the other in Belgrade). The genealogical lineage is completely irrelevant." (he didn't provide any sources for his claim which went against presented sourced in the RfC )

They had quite a strong stand that parents' ethnicity should not be included in the article. I put a link to the RfC.

What is troublesome is what I found recently. They both went against their previous stand and introduce parents' ethnicity to [280] article. One IP objected and did some reverts. I noticed and I reverted them also and opened a discussion.

Then Vanjagenije came, blocked IPs from editing. FkpCascais of course put back their edit. Since then, they both refuse to discuss. I want to confront them about their previous completely opposite stand. I have prepared sources to confront their sources. All that is impossible since there's no point to discuss. They pushed their edit, Vanjagenije aided them deliberately or not, I as an Ip can't edit.

Is this a way to edit Wikipedia? Vote in one RfC no when the edit doesn't go along your view. Then do the same thing you voted against previously on another article. Refuse to discuss, refuse to explain a 180 turn from previous stand. Refuse to discuss at all.

This is not those 2 editors are behaving in such way the first time. I don't want to write a wall of text explaining their history. This example by itself show their lack of consistency and their manipulative way of editing by presenting the same thing in 2 different ways depending on their own view. If someone wants some history, I'm prepared to explain, but you should also be prepared for walls of text. Literally, since only Serbs of Croatia RfC (infamous among other editors as well) lasted for months due to FkpCascais disruptive behavior.

PS. Be prepared to a lot of personal attacks. For one eason or another FkpCascais and 23 editor think that all who oppose their way of editing wikipedia is a sock, as seen from the initial edit that had me involved (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Branimir_%C5%A0tuli%C4%87&diff=766344487&oldid=744590746).

Also, Vanjagenije was of no help either [281]. He knew all about what those 2 editors did on Novak Djokovic's page (he even deleted some of their personal attacks to other editors), yet he didn't see anything wrong with their POV pushing on Branimir Stulic article.

I don't know, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia and Vanjagenije is an admin. Maybe this is a perfectly normal way of editing Wikipedia.

I didn't notify them on their talk page about this discussion on purpose, since they have ignored my plea to join the discussion and reach a consensus. I'm completely disappointed with them ignoring the discussion and even more with the fact that an admin condoles such behavior. 89.164.223.43 (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you must notify any potentially involved editors about any discussion here. It's not an optional step. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the big red text at the top of this page or the big orange box that appears at the top of the edit window did you not get? Blackmane (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editors notified. Blackmane (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've put a source to the talk page to contest their sources.They are still ignoring the discussion and the new source. 141.136.192.216 (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All veterans here know that you edit as IP because you can't create an account because your accounts end up blocked because you are a sockpoppeteer evading indef-ban. Your harassment and repetitive atempts to present me as bad guy and get me blocked are very borring. You have been doing that for some two years now, ever since you confronted me at Nikola Tesla article and got yourself banned. You are becoming quite an unique case here on the project and your case may well be used as exemple on how nowadays we lack proper mechanisms to sucessfully deal with socks and IP editing of indef-banned users. FkpCascais (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice This IP [282] has targeted my edits. This IP is currently reported by another editor. They asked FkpCascais to have a look on my edit at Kosovo War and the later editor undid my changes. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For God sake, please take atention, this is a totally different case unrelated to Kosovo and Albania. FkpCascais (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP 2405:204:C...

User:2405:204:C005:B703:9DC2:251F:B6FE:2648 / User:2405:204:C280:3B2A:F92D:DBDC:356F:9734 / User:2405:204:C601:2A58:D0AD:97BC:F13D:B2EF has been adding and subtracting spaces. [283][284][285][286][287][288][289][290][291][292][293][294][295][296][297][298] It is annoying seeing these show up on my watchlist, plus I suspect that he is doing the same thing using other IP addresses. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Office of the President-Elect has a long list of 2405:204:c000::/36 IP addresses that have been disrupting it, including blanking and adding/removing whitespace. Scanning through the range contribs, it seems this has been going on for a while. However, a /36 range block would be huge. Also, I keep getting HTTP timeout errors while trying to access Wikipedia, making this rather difficult to research right now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After spending some time going through the range contribs, I'm becoming very pessimistic about the quality of edits coming from the /36. I've reverted a few edits to obscure Indian topics, but it's tough for me to determine which edits are vandalism. I'm also pretty sure that the political edits are made by the same person now, especially the obsessive tweaking of articles having to do with political presidents, such as Presidential system, United States presidential transition, and Office of the President-Elect. I'm tempted to briefly semi-protect all the affected articles, as they seem subject to random blanking and poorly-written changes. What do other people think? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More, this time from 2405:204:C28A:339D:54A0:96E:37C5:86D8. There is always the chance that a very short softblock of the range will work. Sometimes a disruptive editor gives up the first time he finds that he is blocked, not realizing that the block is only temporary. Worth a try? Or maybe if someone can catch him in the middle of an editing run using one IP, just blockingh that IP for a few day might have the discouraging effect I am hoping for. Worth a try? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP addresses aren't assigned for very long. I guess I could try a range block if nobody objects. The range isn't all that active, and, like I said, many of the edits coming from it are disruptive. I don't think too many legit editors would be inconvenienced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should try it. If I am right, a week will do the job. Does anyone object? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the latest account (2405:204:C280:5D0E:A0DB:C185:C3F4:A22A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) while he/she was still editing and pointed the IP editor toward this thread as an explanation. Hopefully, this will serve as a wake-up call. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't help. Four more showed up: 2405:204:C28F:AF1C:1455:51A7:5717:EE1B (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2405:204:C08F:CD13:2040:E833:9CCE:E27D (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2405:204:C086:8BD3:E08B:F805:30F8:DFB7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 2405:204:C085:B6CA:941F:FAB:59:C511 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Since most of the edits coming from this range are from the same user (and this user is engaging in block evasion), I'll do a 72 hour range block. If it continues, we can work our way up to longer durations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the effort you are putting in to this. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see a trickle of edits on the range now that the block timed out, but none of them seem to be this user. 24 hours without any disruption is a good sign. However, I haven't been as active in the past few days, so you might have to ping me to get my attention if it starts up again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and establishing reliable sources for article that address possible mercury in High Fructose Corn Syrup

Long-term disruptive IP hopping on The Simpsons-related articles

For nearly three years now, a group of IP's have been disruptively editing The Simpsons-related articles, by adding fake episodes, disruptively switching around information such as writers, production codes, and suppressing info by using nonsensical excuses such as "This site knows too much" displaying WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior, including deleting source information claiming it is "too soon" to list the info or that "they're not ready" for the info to be available yet, despite that the information is sourced. After several years of reverting this user who uses a variety of different IP ranges, the most common ones being 2602:306:37eb:47e0.* (which was rangeblocked by KrakatoaKatie back in January for vandalism, including one other time in August 2015 for "tv-related, ip-hopping disruptive editing and vandalism") and 205.213.104.*, I looked into the vandalism in the page history, and found over 160 examples of this user (using different IPs) vandalizing Simpsons-related pages (the diffs can be found on this page). Despite the many different IPs, the user often uses very similar phrases throughout IPs and displays similar behavior. Adding fake titles, particularly "Maggie Goes to Nursery" 1, 2, 3, sneaky director switching 4, 5 and claiming The Futon Critic, a very reliable press release site that gets all their information directly from the television network, is somehow "ahead of its time" and should not be used 6, 7.

Going through this information, I found one editor, Davejohnsan reverted this editor quite often and seemed to be aware of the person's editing patterns, so I sought him out on his talk page earlier today asking if he would be interested in giving input when I made this report on ANI. Though Dave did not get a chance to respond yet, the IP hopper commented on my message to Davejohnsan diff here pleading with me not to report him and told me "I'll stop for real this time!" along with an "explanation" for why these edits were made. This gave me pause for several reasons, 1) despite his "begging" for another chance, the editor has been blocked several different times on different ranges, so they clearly knew what they were doing was wrong. 2) His explanation clearly displays WP:NOTHERE behavior as he is essentially editing according to his personal whims, and neglects to realize his removal and vandalizing of content affects all of Wikipedia. 3) Finally, in my message, I never once mentioned in my message what this "Disruptive IP range" was, so if the editor was truly "innocent" how would they know I was referring to them? Not to mention the fact that he "conveniently" happened to see my message Davejohnsan's talk page only hours after I posted it, meaning he was likely stalking my contributions as well. At the very least, this editor is WP:NOTHERE and their disruptive behavior cannot continue.

Admittedly, I don't have much experience dealing with this, but I would recommend at least the season 28 and List of The Simpsons episodes articles being semi-protected for now, however, I think a much more long-term solution is necessary as this has been going on for three years now, and cannot continue. Thank you. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 02:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For anyone who decides to take a look at this, Katniss appears to have been kinda keeping up with the edits. Such a list may help with any further blocks put in place. 'Fraid I've not exactly got anything to add to this yet, other than pointing out what I just did. Off to bed for moi! MM('"HURRRR?)^(Hmmmmm.) 02:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are the IP ranges used? It looks like 2602:306:37eb:47e0::/64 and 205.213.104.0/24. Is this correct? I can semi-protect the season 28 article for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaRobotPirateYes, that is correct. Occasionally, other ranges have been used but not for a while. That would be great if you could protect the season 28 article, however, the List of the Simpsons episodes article is an equally common target of this vandalism. I would potentially suggest maybe blocking both of those ranges as well so they don't simply switch to other season articles after that one is blocked. Thanks! KatnissMay the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 01:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake, just saw that you protected both those articles already. Thank you! I would still suggest those two ranges you list above be blocked to prevent the other season pages from getting targeted.

Also, if the vandalism/disruption resumes after the semi-protection elapses, should I re-report back here or somewhere else? Thanks! KatnissMay the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 01:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I semi-protected both articles. I also blocked both IP ranges for a month. Let me know if there are other IP addresses that perform that same disruption. I might be able to do something about that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I will definitely let you know if I see any more disruption after the protection has elapsed. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 02:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mlpearc, edit warring and communication style

Mlpearc (talk · contribs) is a long standing and prolific editor who works in anti-vandalism and maintenance areas of articles. Over time, I have become frustrated that he turns innocuous and mild content disputes into heated edit wars by reverting content without explanation and leaving little to no discussion beyond the standard Twinkle boilerplate and inaccurate accusations of vandalism. These issues were present in his RfA in 2012 (eg: oppose #3) and I brought up some examples at his ORCP about six months ago. Most recently, I have seen him getting into an unnecessary quarrel on User talk:SquidandStag, where he accused the other party of harrassment and filed an AIV report over it, leading me to decline the report, explain the edits weren't vandalism, and calm everybody down.

The latest feud is in Atom Heart Mother; now having done significant work on this article, including the original GA review, I fully get that IPs turning up and changing the "genre" field in the infobox again, again, again and again is worthy of WP:LAME, and I'm not exactly a saint in this regard, as I have tended to revert with occasional "not this again" edit summaries (I'd argue "not this again" is at least a reason, albeit a bad one; whereas the Twinkle "reverted edits by" message isn't). However, as soon as somebody presents the Daily Telegraph as a source justifying a change, that is sufficient grounds for leaving it and having a discussion. But this doesn't seem to be enough for Mlpearc, who wanders in and reverts it. Elsewhere, I see he's picking a fight with an IP over an edit on Electric guitar which I felt was a reasonable copyedit. Then there's the thread below it, discussing whether it's appropriate to say that Syd Barrett remained a professional musician as late as 1974, which is brushed off without assuming as much good faith as I'd like.

I have attempted to discuss this with Mlpearc in the past, as his talk page asserts he is only human and opened to reasoned debate about possible errors (which is good). Unfortunately, my edits got reverted, so I've given up. Now I find Mlpearc has created a page User:Mlpearc/Admin stalkers with a link to one of my comments on it; I don't know whether he's keeping a handy record of archived conversations, collecting "evidence" to drag me to ANI himself, or something else.

I'm not looking for any blocks or bans (they have a tendency to boomerang and he works in the same topic areas as me so I'd trip up on an interaction ban all over the place); indeed, most of the time I'd say Mlpearc's article-space edits are right, or at least justifiable on their merits. Rather I've just got a bit frazzled trying to explain to Mlpearc how he can be a better editor all-round, and I'd like to ask the community what we can do about this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, he's been struggling with SPI/Iloveartrock, but that subpage, which I deleted, is definitely inappropriate. I'll drop him a note. El_C 11:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• On the narrow issue of the "Electric guitar" revert--I agree that the IP's edit was positive. It is true that no sources were added, but most of it was copyediting, and I didn't really see "opinion" in there, so the edit summary, "unsourced personal opinions", was not correct. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I have always found Mlpearc to be courteous and reasonable. Are there any examples of others taking issue with his conduct? If not, I'm wondering if this may just be a personal issue between the two of you. Sometimes people just don't get along. Might it be that Mlpearc doesn't think you're the right person to be giving him advice on "how he can be a better editor all-round", which does sound a little patronising? Although I agree that the page deleted by El C bore an unfortunate title, it does reflect that Mlpearc is (rightly or wrongly) being made uncomfortable by the attention he is receiving form you. I don't think an interaction ban makes sense either, but maybe you should disengage for a while? WJBscribe (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any examples of others taking issue with his conduct? Absolutely; here are some recent examples :

• Im fed up with being victimised on wiki when all i want to do is help!!
• It's on YouTube look at his Documents and his Biography Shine On You Crazy Diamond. (reply : "YouTube is not a reliable source, either find a good source or leave it out, simple" - YouTube is usually not a reliable source but can be in some context eg: official channels for speech transcript; no comment was made on the book)
• For your information, I have been an admin in former times, and at one time was in the top few hundred contributors and so am more than experienced at WP editing. I am not current with the present editorial politics, and, indeed, it was changes in those politics which caused me to go on an extended Wiki-vacation. If those changes have continued the trend I noticed then, I suspect I am likely to vacation myself again.
• Mlpearc, you're ignorant; You've done this more than once; Stop disrupting my editing or I'll report you. (Incivil, yes, but with a legitimate point behind this)
• I do not know what I have been doing to articles that is upsetting you, but I suggest you stop trying to attack me. There is really no need for this bombardment.

And that's just from the past week! I want to emphasise that I personally have never had issue with Mlpearc; I don't believe he's ever reverted any mainspace edits of mine and indeed on occasion I have been happy for him to make an edit so I didn't have to. Ritchie333^(talk)(cont) 14:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than taking the above diffs at face value, editors should look at the complaining editors' edits and decide if Mlpearc's responses were reasonable. Active recent change patrollers are going to get many complaints like these. --NeilN^{talk to me} 15:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I did; had I concluded every comment was in response to a bad-faith or disruptive edit, I would not have come here. Ritchie333^(talk)(cont) 16:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, for example, making this revert and asking for sources is a legitimate conduct issue? --NeilN^{talk to me} 16:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: Not a feud, I call it maintaining the project - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem here, editors make bad, poor, or questionable edits, and they get removed, then they complain. There seems to be a lot of warring over music genres by throwaway IP users, like what's going on at Atom Heart Mother right now, they have to get their favorite sub-sub-sub-genre in because one writer used a word in one article. ValarianB (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Bad, poor or questionable" in whose view? Yours? Mine? Jimbo Wales? The Daily Mail's? Let me try and explain where I'm coming on in one of the examples here : Atom Heart Mother is assessed as GA, but looking at it now it probably doesn't actually meet the GA criteria - in fairness it was one of my first GAs back in 2012 and so obviously doesn't come up to the standard I would deploy these days. The most obvious problem is the snippets of unsourced content; most of the claims can be cited to the various Floyd biographies relatively easily. The prose needs tidying up a bit, there are a few buzz-words like "notable" that I don't really like to see in prose. The citation format is inconsistent, particularly in the "Live performances" section where there are citations given as bare URL links, and what does "performances by other forces" mean? Elsewhere, I would prefer all of the book sources to use {{sfn}} / {{harvnb}} as it means pulling out citations to multiple pages in the same book source is more convenient. All of the above is more important than reverting back and forth over the "genre" field in the infobox (and yes ValarianB, you are edit-warring in that article, mind you don't do 4 reverts inside 24 hours and get blocked for it!), for which I do not personally give a flying toss what is in the field as long as it looks vaguely sensible. I think Beyond My Ken said it best here : "Start with an article that looks like shit and reads like it was written by a high-school dropout. A hundred edits later, take another look at the article – and it still looks and reads like shit. .... This is the problem with eventualism: it assumes that, somewhere along the way, someone's actually going to fix the real problems and not just niggle around the edges." I appreciate it's unfair to lump this entire problem at Mlpearc's door as he can't be held responsible for the entire ills of Wikipedia, but I do wonder sometimes if I'm just talking like a batshit insane lunatic for having these views? Ritchie333^(talk)(cont) 16:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, you're not batshit insane; I mean, you're on the spectrum somewhere but so am I. Big deal. I sense frustration on everyone's part here and we're pretty much all on the same side. I'm thinking some time off...concentrating on other areas...the usual (or only) therapies available to us. I'm not dismissing your concerns, Ritchie, but none of us that spend a lot of time here have it easy. Again, general observation(s); dodging the crux 'cause I see both sides have merit. Tiderolls 17:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree @Tide rolls: my honey-do lists get longer in the summer so I'll have some time off and thank you @Ritchie333: for starting this thread, seems we'll all benefit . ValarianB I agree, there are sooo many new sub-genre's popping up everyday it seems and everyone want's their favorite bands and genre to get married, there were some sub-genre's being added to Pink Floyd that weren't even thought of when their music was released, anyway, Cheers all, - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption from IP range on race related articles

Request for some Administrator assistance at Bon Secours Sisters...

Baseball Bugs and Widr failing to AGF

User:Jayboyspecker

Category:Movies

Spam on my information

Dear Administrator

I am Dr. Rola Dashti and every time I change the info on my page to update it, a user keeps on changing it back to old information stating he knows me. I confirm to you that this person has no relationship with me and ask you to block him and return my update information on the site.

Thank you,

Dr. Rola Dashti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdashti (talk • contribs) 10:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BLPSELF and also WP:COI. It's not advised to edit articles about yourself except to fix obvious errors. Instead use the talk page. Notably while it's best not to add information period, you definitely should not be adding information without a WP:Reliable source supporting that info. It doesn't matter that you know it to be correct because it's about yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've given Arjayay a shout about this as he's tried to give SDashi a hand with this. [307][308] standard appears to have been done for this situation, I think. MM('"HURRRR?)^(Hmmmmm.) 12:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I have removed all unsourced information from the article per WP:BLP("Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"); if anybody wants to re-add the information, include an in-line citation to a reliable source. When a living person complains about an article on Wikipedia they had no hand in creating, it's best to go easy and not Twinkle spam them, as it can be contentious and upsetting. Ritchie333^(talk)(cont) 12:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sdashti claims "a user keeps on changing it back to old information stating he knows me. I confirm to you that this person has no relationship with me" - Could she please show where anyone has stated that they know her? - Arjayay (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Administrator note Per WP:REALNAME I have blocked the thread starter until they provide identification that they are in fact Rola Dashti. Since the subject is a government minister, I think it's best to be careful when someone claims to be her. Regards SoWhy 13:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And first female MP elected to the Kuwaiti parliament, no less. Good call. El_C 04:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The responses to this thread and the messages on the users talk page are a wonderful example of the complete and utter disrespect with which potential article subjects are treated (see Jimbo's talk page for a long discussion and prepare for another daily mail article). The first response encourages the user to read a couple unhelpful essays, the talk page is splattered with impersonal templates (2 of them right in a row!), and finally the user is blocked, with a note to appeal to a volunteer-run email system. Now of course there are genuine concerns of gaming, but this type of situation needs an immediate improvement from the community. More of Yngvadottir's approach is needed. 2600:100C:B225:377D:7829:F085:9E40:D72 (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody was disrespected. Instead we respect Dr Dashti and want to make sure she's not being impersonated. You cannot expect that a) editors take any claim of identity on face value (that would open all floodgates to abuse) and b) a site run by volunteers to run a non-volunteer email system. Kleuske (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've now updated the article; it had gathered some dust. I'm tempted to try to e-mail Rola Dashti. But since I have used up my IAR unblocks for this lifetime, could I request admin consideration of unblocking Sdashti? There is a vanishingly small likelihood she is not who she says she is, the user name is by no means an obvious impersonation, the user can always be blocked in future should there be any threat to the encyclopedia, and I would really like her to help us out with Arabic references for her career, quite apart from the help she could give us with other Kuwaiti figures (Hind Sabih Al-Sabih is still a red link, for one). Yngvadottir (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLPSELF is not an essay and explicitly deals with the situation of people editing articles on themselves. And I also explicitly summarised the key points here, namely that they should not be directly editing articles about themselves. Like it or not, people editing articles on themselves often leads to trouble for them so there are good reasons why it's strongly discouraged. I did explicitly check their contrib history and noticed that they were adding information without sources hence my last comment.

I did consider saying something like "I know this may be frustrating and confusing, but it doesn't matter...." And similarly I did consider repeating what I'd already said namely the need for reliable sources but I can be very repetitive and know it doesn't always help. Especially when my message gets too long and there's something else it'll probably be better they read (or they're just not going to read the whole thing), this is perhaps a good example of that. Likewise I did consider mentioning something like their hopeful knowledge of reliable sources covering them but wasn't sure this was that useful, after all plenty of people know a fair a bit about them but probably don't really know what reliable sources cover that info. Especially reliable sources we will accept, since for example if a person received an award they may a photo of the award or them receiving it, but it's not generally something we will accept. (And yes I have seen similar things before e.g. someone wanting to use their passport to show something.)

Perhaps the most significant point is that there's no easy way to tell people "as much as you may understandably hate it, the article on you will only generally contain what info we can reliably source". I'm unconvinced being gentle about it is necessarily better than being direct. Notably there is always a risk an editor may feel your being patronising or treating them like an idiot who can't read or understand stuff for themselves if you specify in great deal what what they should and shouldn't do. (This doesn't mean I'm discouraging anyone from acting in a certain way, rather simply pointing out it's always difficult to say what works best since it's going to depend on the individual.)

The only thing I do agree is I'm not sure there's a need for the block here. Unless things have seriously changed since I used to frequent WP:BLP/N, we do not block people when they claim to be the subject when they are editing under a different name or as is commonly the case, an IP. While I can understand the need for the general policy on usernames, I don't see the need for it to apply here considering the only thing the editor is doing is basically the same thing namely dealing with an article on themselves. There's no reason why someone with part of their likely real name editing an article on themselves or talking about it creates significantly more risk of harm to the real life reputation than someone editing with an IP but who has also declared so. (There may be some minor greater risk in that lazy media are more likely to notice it.) Of course if the editor starts making questionable edits elsewhere we can re-visit.

Besides that, the one thing we hopefully all agree we do need to do when dealing with article subjects is as far as possible, make sure we address any concerns they do have as reasonably as possible. This means of course we should make sure info in article is well sources. I admit I didn't do that here, I didn't feel I had the time. But I don't think we should expect people only reply when they do so, that could easily leave subjects with zero help. In a volunteer run project there are always going to be limits of how much help a person receives in cleaning up an article on themselves. For example, a week or 2 ago, I dealt with this article Branimir Štulić as best I could by removing the info which seemed unsourced after complaints from someone who said they were representing the article's subject. It seemed and still seems a lot of the other info is disputed, unfortunately since it appears sourced and most of it is in Serbian or Croatian neither of which I understand, it's difficult for me to deal with the rest. This may not be a satisfactory outcome, but until and unless someone with the necessary knowledge (to check sources and confirms their sufficiently reliable especially for a BLP) helps, there's not much more that can be done.

I'd note that while the article on a government minister from Kuwait is probably more important to wikipedia than an article on a singer who's a cult hit in the former Yugoslavia but not so well known elsewhere, from the subject's POV it's equally important that they're dealt with. And in fact the problems in the article I dealt with seem to be more pressing since it seems the subject actively disputes them rather than the info just being outdated. Again this doesn't mean I'm faulting anyone for what they have and haven't done but rather pointing out as a volunteer run project there are always going to be limits on our help which will be understandably frustrating to subjects.

Incidentally, while I can't be sure, I get the feeling that at least some aspects of the other BLP dispute I mentioned are never going to be dealt with to the satisfaction of the subject simply because of our requirements and even if I'm wrong about that case the general principle definitely isn't namely there can never be an entirely satisfactory outcome for all subjects.

Finally while it's always helpful to look at a situation which seems to have gone wrong, e.g. by media reports, we also have to take care not to read too much into something just because there was a big fuss. Sure in that case maybe things would have been better if handled differently, in other cases maybe that other option would have been the worse choice. Relying on outliers to decide on what should be done tends to lead to bad outcomes. Instead you need a more wholesale analysis and also need to accept that whatever option you choose there's always going to be a case where if fails even if you follow it perfectly simply because that solution doesn't work for everyone and it's impossible to entirely accurately predict what will work.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Socking, COI, repeated article creation/deletion

Multiple socks and IP editors keep creating versions of Rajkumar Mishra(Film Actor) and vandalizing India film pages by replacing famous actor's names with "Rajkumar Mishra."

• Special:Contributions/RAJKUMAR_MISHRA_FILM_ACTOR
• Special:Contributions/47.31.1.214
• Special:Contributions/2405:204:3008:1F76:0:0:1B41:88A4
• Special:Contributions/37.127.136.241

Closed sockpuppet investigation here shows prior socks:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RAJ_KUMAR_MISHRA

Blocking and salting page creation for this latest article would be a good thing. First Light (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And they continue:

• dif
• dif

First Light (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And more:

• dif]

First Light (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Though I fail to see 37.127.136.241's connection to Rajkumar Mishra(Film Actor). El_C 10:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and yes, that was mistake to add that particular IP, who actually was reverting the vandalism. Thanks for noticing! First Light (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our sock is not done, it seems:

• Rajkumar_Mishra(Tv_actor)
• Rajkumar Mishra(TV actor)
• latest sockpuppet: User:Rajkumar Mishra (Tv actor)

First Light (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything above has been taken care of, now we have this user adding the name to List of Indian television actors: Block for IP, please,[309] and that article could be put under protection since it's a favorite target. First Light (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Another IP spamming this supposed actor's name:

2405:204:300A:DB87:0:0:24B9:38B0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) First Light (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any famous person with this name, or any reason this couldn't be set up as a filter to stop it being added to random articles? From the profile it looks like a game of whack-a-mole and this mole seems to have a lot of time on their hands, so perhaps a new approach is needed. Lankiveil^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

haha, I was just looking at the edit filter request page to ask for this. No, there is no famous person like that. No articles or authors, etc., as far as I know. Can you request an edit filter for this, or I can do it? First Light (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And now this: Rajkumar Mishra(Actors)First Light (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • plus the new sock: User:Rajkumar Mishra (Actors) First Light (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that as you have more experience with this individual you'd probably be better off making the request. Edit filters are expensive in processing terms and tricky to set up, and they'll have to be run in test mode for awhile to make sure it doesn't return any false positives before being put in "disallow" mode. Lankiveil^{(speak to me)} 12:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do - thanks, First Light (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now "Raja Mishra

• Raja Mishra Actor (talk · contribs)

Could an admin please block this latest sockpuppet? First Light (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More socks, additional name

• Mahant Lal(actor) (talk · contribs)
• Rajkumar Mishra(telefilms) (talk · contribs)
• 2405:204:308A:C765:0:0:1186:E8A0) (talk · contribs)

Also created the article Mahant Lal ("sources" are broken links), using a photo that had been previously uploaded by Rajkumar Mishra, in case you want to know what our friend looks like. First Light (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mdalifmondol self-publicity

Riceissa

TBAN for Korvex from biblical archeology