Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Orugaberuteika/Jizugatudo : COI and CIR concerns

Orugaberuteika (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account concerned with the article Ryuho Okawa, about a Japanese religious leader. The article about Okawa as well as that about the controversial religious organisation he started, Happy Science, have been targeted by COI accounts from time to time, who try to whitewash the articles and remove well-sourced criticism. So far, so depressingly common when it comes to articles related to religion. Orugaberuteika was registered on 31 August this year, and they have also edited as Jizugatudo and using the IP 126.33.19.67; the connection was self-disclosed here and the multiple accounts seem to have been a genuine misunderstanding.

There are two concerns: a refusal to comply with repeated requests to formally disclose their COI, and an inability to understand English, and to write in comprehensible English. They claim to "have a lot of information about Okawa"; when asked about their COI they appeared to acknowledge it; they refer to "our activities" (possibly just a language/CIR issue but I really doubt it); and they use the connected contributor request for their edit requests. All these things taken together, as well as their total focus on one article, signal COI. They have been asked repeatedly to disclose this COI, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. After the third request on their talk page (third diff in the previous sentence), I posted this on the article's talk page, which Orugaberuiteka answered with this. My reply was maybe a bit exasperated, but it was answered graciously - after which Orugaberuteika continued making edit requests and other edits without addressing their COI in any way (even to deny it), and they have kept doing so, despite several renewed disclosure requests. I am running out of ways to say "You have to reply to this concern before you make any other edits at all", and it still hasn't registered.

That may, however, be at least in part due to their massive lack of understanding of English. I work with English language proficiency, and meet students from many different countries - I'm pretty good at deciphering what people mean and don't care whether they use "correct" English in conversation, but I honestly cannot understand this, for instance. Over and over they have demonstrated that they, too, don't understand what people say: here I asked Jizugatudo if they were the same user as Orugaberuteika and said "Please note that using more than one account to make it look as if different people are making the same argument is prohibited." They replied like this, I replied here (again not being as polite as I could have, but patience is a limited resource, especially when dealing with COI editors asking us do do their work for them). Another example: a couple of weeks ago they asked if the number of members in Happy Science could be added to the article; I responded, they appeared to understand and agree, but ten days later they requested the same thing again (two talk page sections with identical titles about the same topic).

At this point, their refusal or inability to read and comply with WP:COI, WP:V and other policies, as well as their inability to even communicate in English, is becoming disruptive. A couple of editors (including myself) recently removed Orugaberuteika's article talk page posts because they keep making new posts without addressing their COI, but that also hasn't worked. I'm not sure if there is a remedy to a total lack of comprehension, other than a CIR block - possibly if there is a Japanese speaker in the house who can explain to them what the issue is, but I'm not overly hopeful. --bonadea contributions talk 11:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• yep they are clearly here to promote this person and the religion. This comment, about understanding Japanese as somehow mandatory, is very wrong-headed. The language is daunting, layered on top of their not understanding what we do here, and the bludgeoning.

About the COI thing, they do seem to have some notion that they shouldn't edit directly; they wrote here: Please reconsider. If you stop the discussion I have to make a direct fix. I also want to avoid it from the spirit of the wiki.. Do you see? And they are making edit requests. But they have not disclosed their connection. For all we know the person is a paid PR person.

I recommend indeffing both accounts. One can be unblocked, after the person discloses and understands that they cannot use WP for promotion. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I've indeffed both accounts, in what I hope was an explanatory way, and blocked the IP 126.33.19.67 for two weeks. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen. That's a good explanation, but unfortunately they didn't read it - instead they went ahead and created Opqi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --bonadea contributions talk 05:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, blocked, but I'm on the run now. Other admins, please step in if there's more of this. Bishonen | talk 06:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC).

And I'm back. Orugaberuteika has requested unblock, and I have given them a slew of very specific questions to answer first. Let's see if they understand the questions and if I understand the answers. Bishonen | talk 12:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC).

Wanted: Japanese speaker

As per above, we are having great difficulty in communicating with this user. I hope the questions I've just posted for them at User talk:Orugaberuteika will do the trick, but in case not, is there a Japanese-speaking admin or experienced user who might help? Bishonen | talk 12:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC).

• Try Category:User ja-N, its for those who self ID as speaking Japanese natively. You should be able to find someone able to help. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Paging The Blade of the Northern Lights. EEng 15:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Can't believe Hijiri88 and I are not getting calls for this gig. Alex Shih (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

  (sheepishly) I had imagined Shih to be a Chinese name. Besides, we all thought you were taking it easy to heal your post-Arbcom shattered nerves. EEng 21:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I have been living in Japan for the past 8 years (until recently), my dear friend. Alex Shih (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• You seem to have forgotten @Nihonjoe:. Blackmane (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, I hate to say but Nihonjoe's Japanese ability is about the same as The Blade of the Northern Lights I think. If we are talking about enwiki admins that actually speaks Japanese fluently, Dekimasu would be one of the names that comes to my mind. Alex Shih (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Blackmane (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm decent at translating information, but not so decent at discussions in Japanese. Also, I haven't done a lot in Japanese for over 17 years outside of translating a few pages here and there. So yeah, quite rusty. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Shii's disappeared off the face of the earth, as had Yunshui for a long time; the latter has since come back, and revealed that his Japanese was not as good as I thought it was. Also I'm not an admin. I'm pretty sure I'm forgetting about at least one Japan-focused and Japanese-proficient admin with whom I've interacted in the past. As for Japanese-speaking non-admins, I'm definitely not the only one, but I'm probably one of very few, if not the only one, who frequently pokes his nose into ANI drahma-fests in which he is not directly involved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me think for you! Another Japan-focused and Japanese-proficient admin would be Mr. Stradivarius whom I often stalk as well (laugh). Alex Shih (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

If Mr. Stradivarius is an admin, he's found a way to circumvent the script Curly Turkey (another Japanese-proficient non-admin) told me about that puts a coloured border around links to admins' user and user talk pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• (Mr. Stradivarius is definitely an admin). Hijiri88 has kindly translated my questions for Orugaberuteika, and O has answered that he has no COI, merely an interest, and has made other assurances. I have assumed good faith and unblocked, with hesitation, as the user's English skills remain a problem. If some of the Japanese speakers mentioned or posting above would watch the article Ryuho Okawa it would be very kind. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC).

Huh. Apparently the script doesn't work when the link uses Template:Noping. You learn something new every day.

As for Okawa: yeah, I'm not going near that. I was TBANned from "Japanese culture" by ArbCom for the better half of two years, partly because a (now site-banned) editor, who almost never wrote what sources said (and himself apparently had a religious motivation), was able to repeatedly convince a sizable portion of the community, who weren't willing to read the English sources, that I was a religious POV-pusher trying to "censor" criticism of a certain Japanese NRM. and not in fact just making sure English Wikipedia said only what the reliable sources said. It got to the point where, the community having failed to deal with it repeatedly over the course of more than a year, ArbCom got involved, and since ArbCom accept evidence from users with unrelated "beef" with the involved parties and lump all the disputes together, two other users who were hounding me at the time also got to be named as parties even though they had nothing to do with it.

I'm not touching NRMs unless I have advance assurance from the community that I will be exempt from sanctions for addition or removal of content based on my good-faith reading of the sources, and that's something I wouldn't expect to be offered.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Huh. Reading back over it, I now notice that Dekimasu's name also doesn't have the border, and I know Dekimasu is an admin, so that probably should have clued me in earlier. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88 and Bishonen: Thanks for the ping (and the no-ping ;). It looks like everything is sorted out now that Orugaberuteika has been unblocked, but I would be happy to help with future Japanese communication problems should they arise. These days I'm writing emails in Japanese all day at work, so writing in Japanese on Wikipedia as well wouldn't be too much of a stretch. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: if you think it would involve risks for yourself, you should perhaps stay away. Thank you for the translation you did. Mr. Stradivarius, I'm not sure everything is sorted out, since two highly experienced editors, Bonadea and Jytdog, have the impression Orugaberuteika does in fact have a COI. And I'm still worried about their communication problems. I'd appreciate it if you'd watchlist the article and keep an eye out. Bishonen | talk 14:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC).

Article ownership at List of common misconceptions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An editor, Fountains of Bryn Mawr is exhibiting ownership of the list article List of common misconceptions. A quick overview shows some startling features:

• Bryn has reverted ~30 edits in two periods covering January-March and July-present.
• Bryn has only ever added content to this article three times, 1, 2 and 3. Two were to restore content they previously deleted, while one was to refactor content based on their reverts of other editors. (There was also another refactoring edit that only added a single character, so I did not bother linking it.) There was one additional case (mentioned at the bottom below), but that same edit also removed far more than it added.
• Bryn has reverted at least 9 different editors on that page since first editing in January.
• Bryn has been involved in at least 3 different edit wars on that article. It's difficult to count because Bryn has so many reverts on that page, but the last edit war was against two different editors, with a third (and possibly a fourth... It's a big talk page) disagreeing with them at talk but not participating via revert. This resulted in the page being protected by SarekOfVulcan today.

A little history with diffs; Back in January, Bryn made a revert referencing a non-existent criteria for inclusion. During that same month, Bryn began "enforcing" this criteria upon other new additions, including one case where they correctly noted that the source did not support the claim, but then straight up lied about what the sources in the linked article said. Hell, the second sentence of the article contains the claim Bryn claimed is not in the article. And this was true at the time, not just now, which Bryn should know, because Bryn had been editing that very article on that very topic that very day. The ownership of the article continued into the next month, with more reverts citing the non-existent criteria [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] and on, and on and on. Except for a single long break a few months ago, it's continued, with the following reverts from July to the present: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Note that this is not an exhaustive list: There are a few more reverts that I didn't bother including.

Finally, just recently when Bryn apparently noticed that the criteria they had been referring to didn't exist, they went ahead and added it to the article themself, a move that was immediately protested by another editor, but which Bryn, of course, defended. Bryn then subsequently pointed to the very text they added to justify further reverts (those at the end of the long string in the last paragraph).

I think this is a textbook case of article ownership and that Bryn should be page-banned from that article to halt the disruption and allow normal editing to resume. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

How exactly is an inclusion criteria written in plain English and quoted directly from the 'Criteria for entries' template [26] displayed in the edit page 'non-existent'? 86.149.219.138 (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, replace "ignored, deprecated and non-consensus based" with "nonexistent" and everything else remains the same. This was the state of the article talk page when the edit notice was created. You'll notice, despite the edit summary of the creation of that editnotice, there nowhere in it are these criteria agreed to by anything resembling a consensus. You can also randomly check good additions since that discussion (in 2011) to see that it has not been adhered to by the majority of editors. In fact, it's rarely even mentioned. Finally, you'll note that I gave evidence above of at least one case where Bryn was striahgt up lying about this not appearing in another article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so if there isn't a consensus for the template, start a discussion about removing or revising it. Because as far as I'm aware, Wikipedia doesn't topic ban people for doing what they are told, rather than what someone else thinks there is a hypothetical 'consensus' for. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

After looking at your diff it is clear you are wrong about the lying. Bryn did not write that the information did not exist in the article. What he wrote was that the information was not in the source used by the article. Since the source states “In the long term, social perceptions of sharks, changed from fear to conservation, influencing local, national and international government conservation and management policies.” he would seem to be correct that saying sharks are widely feared is unsupported by the sources in the target article as pertains to “Jaws”. Now I could call you a liar for misstating what he wrote but instead I will just assume good faith and assume you were just hasty and incorrect. 67.170.223.20 (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

He removed one of several sources, leaving at least one that explicitly states that which he said no source at the article states. And I did not accuse them of saying the article didn't say that, I said he lied ...about what the sources in the linked article said... (em. added). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that “Despite their relative rarity, many people fear shark attacks after occasional serial attacks” supports “are quite rare, but they're widely feared due to films”?. Do you not see how those are completely different statements? “Many” does not equal “widely” and “after serial attack” does not equal “due to films”. What was the source for a wide fear about shark attacks caused by films in the present tense? If you do not have one then I would say you calling Bryn a liar is an aspersion for which you should be sanctioned.67.170.223.20 (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh FFS, I'm not handholding you through the entire article. Go fucking read it yourself. This source is right there in the "Media impact" sections. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Since when has a BA thesis been WP:RS? 86.149.219.138 (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I grabbed the one for the chart. Try this one for the statement. Nice to see you decided not to read the article like I suggested. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

For your information, it was another IP that you told to "read the fucking article". Maybe you should try reading the fucking ANI noticeboard a bit more carefully. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

For your information, Dynamic IPs are really common. If you expect me to whois every IP that responds to my comment like they are the same IP I was just talking to, you're out of your mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not expecting you to do anything beyond reading more carefully. You should try it sometime, it might make future threads you start at ANI more effective. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps you will point me to the part of your comment that identified you as a different party than the one with whom I was conversing when you jumped in behaving exactly as if you were that person? I do seem to have missed that, what with my poor reading skills and all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those sources support a wide ranging fear about shark attacks caused by films in the present tense. The one you are quoting now only lasting claim is that it caused an increase in shark hunting. You owe Bryn an apology for calling them a liar.2601:646:8500:ECA0:A4D5:1A7D:819B:C1CF (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Obvious sophistry from my socal buddy is obvious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Mate, do you actually think your ability to run a geolocation is intimidating? Not every Spanish named city is in Southern California so please next time go with “south bay, buddy”.2601:646:8500:ECA0:A4D5:1A7D:819B:C1CF (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

LOL Keep trying. I'm sure if you just keep hounding the same guys, eventually Wikipedia will decide you are a valuable editor and unblock your original account. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

If he removed one which "explicitly stated" what was removed than you should have no problem quoting the source. If not you really need to strike out the claim that Bryn was lying.2601:646:8500:ECA0:A4D5:1A7D:819B:C1CF (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about the contents of the page in question, not user conduct

That page is Exhibit A for how grotesquely and meaninglessly overbroad so many lists are. Not to mention culturally narrow. Why, in Ruritania it's a common misconception that wugglenups can only flandle during a full moon -- why isn't that listed? Plus, the idea that some of these things are "common misconceptions" is just plain ludicrous. "Microwave ovens do not heat food by operating at a special resonance of water molecules in the food. The functional principle of a microwave oven is dielectric heating rather than resonance frequencies of water, and microwave ovens can therefore operate at many frequencies." Yes, I can't count the number of times I've run into people suffering under that delusion. "Did you know," my aged grand aunt said to me just the other day, "that microwave ovens heat food by operating at a special resonance of water molecules in the food?" "No, auntie," replied I, "The functional principle of a microwave oven is dielectric heating rather than resonance frequencies of water, and microwave ovens can therefore operate at many frequencies." "You always were such a clever boy!" she said, giving me a box on the ears. Right. Sure. Anyone who thinks this is a "common misconception" watches too much The Big Bang Theory. EEng 18:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC) What a fucking trivia page. Does it qualify for any deletion criteria? I'd love to vote to delete it and solve this entire thing. --Tarage (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC) The last deletion attempt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) ​Unless every single entry is sourced to an actual reliable source by Wikipedia's definition—which decidedly does not include most of this mess of blogs, opinion pieces, links to Snopes and Snopes wannabees, and outright "crap I found on Google"—that specifically and explicitly state that the item in question is a common misconception, then it's a straight-up violation of the first of the Five Pillars. I doubt it would be deleted at AfD at present because the existence of this ANI thread will bring the "keep, it exists" ARSholes out of the woodwork, but removing everything that isn't correctly sourced would make a drastic inroad. ‑ Iridescent 18:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC) That AFD was 7 years ago. Let's have another one. Anything on that article page could be moved to the appropriate article and nothing of value would be lost. As it stands now it is 100% trivia. Who comes to Wikipedia specifically looking for this who isn't already looking at an article related to the topic? --Tarage (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Insomniacs. EEng 19:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Lazy researchers. (Has anyone ever believed that any part of The Sound of Music soundtrack was the Austrian national anthem?) ‑ Iridescent 19:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC) You should add "No one has ever believed that Edelweiss was Austria's national anthem" as a separate entry for the article. Sourced to this ANI thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC) I'm even more taken by Infants can and do feel pain. Does that mean that I have to go out and spend my hard-earned cash on a real pincushion rather than just using the baby like all the other people who subscribe to this misconception? (On the subject of Edelweiss, ironically this shit-sheet of an article manages to neglect the one national anthem misconception that is genuinely widespread, that the words Deutschland Uber Alles appear in the German national anthem.) ‑ Iridescent 19:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC) You don't have to be an "ARShole" to see that the argument "unless..." is not a good argument for deletion because you are admitting that an encyclopedic version of this list can possibly exist, so everything else is just a question of editing. After all, WP:5P1 says Wikipedia "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" and these kinds of publications have always included such information and it's clearly a notable topic based on the countless RS that deal with them. Instead of mulling over possibilities for deletion, help out to define strict criteria for such lists and clean them of entries that don't meet them. Regards SoWhy 19:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC) It's also completely inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. For example the very first entry "Searing meat may cause it to lose moisture in comparison to an equivalent piece of meat cooking without searing." is totally against the actual article on Searing that states "Although often said to "lock in the moisture" or "seal in the juices", searing has been demonstrated[1] to result in a greater net loss of moisture versus cooking to the same internal temperature without first searing. Nonetheless, it remains an essential technique in cooking meat for several reasons:" so clearly not a misconception. I also note that nothing seems to be sourced as a common misconception, and I'm not sure how such a concept can be referenced. Tending towards the nuke it from orbit option myself. Canterbury Tail talk 18:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC) @Iridescent: What!!!? Noooooooooooooooo!-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not gonna fight anyone who wants to bring this to AfD, but I don't see how this article can be improved in a workable way as long as there's an editor there reverting literally everyone who tries to add to it, no matter what their sourcing looks like. The latest edit war is over a misconception that is about as well sourced as one can expect any such thing to get. Edit warring over that is a problem. But making the case that this article is a wreck? I'm right there with you. That's exactly why I would like to be able to improve it by adding well-sourced examples while removing poorly sourced examples. Hell, I was arguing in favor of deleting a lot of entries a few months ago, and Bryn's work looked good to me for a while. It wasn't until I saw them responding the same way to good edits as they did to bad edits that this started to stick out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• You think the sources you're edit-warring to add here—which include "Dildographer, a site dedicated to the study of sex toys, the user-generated "Comment is Free" blog section of The Guardian (needless to say, cited just as The Guardian with no mention that it's below-the-line user-submitted opinion on their website rather than the actual paper), the catalogue of the Wellcome collection and a blog called "Whores of Yore" are as well sourced as one can expect any such thing to get? If these are the good sources, it really doesn't speak much to the quality of the rest of them. ‑ Iridescent 20:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you asking if I think Helen King, Fern Riddell and The Atlantic are generally reliable sources for this use? Why yes, yes I do.

If you expect sources covering the history of sex and sex toys to take themselves completely seriously and never to show a hint of humor, then I am afraid you are sadly mistaken. Jokes are not as uncommon in sexology as they are in other academic subjects, for what should be fairly obvious reasons. Plus, with the... broad... interest humanity has in the subject, combined with those schizophrenic Western views about the acceptability of discussing sex in any sort of formal way, any expectation of finding immaculate sources discussing a topic in sexuality that the average WPian can verify information in is a recipe for disappointment. I also notice you quoted the highly qualified estimation, but don't seem to have acknowledged that it's a qualified estimation. I didn't say it was perfectly sourced, I said... Well, you quoted it, so you know. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Which isn't what I asked (although if you seriously think opinion pieces by Fern Riddell are a RS for anything other than Fern Riddell's opinions other than in her actual field of the politics of music hall, I think we're done here). Which, of "Dildographer", an old blog entry by Fern Riddell on the now-defunct Comment is Free, or "Whores of Yore" are you claiming represent "as well sourced as one can expect any such thing to get"? It's not like this is some arcane field where the sources don't exist; this is pure "I can't be bother to read the books so lets see what Google throws up" writing. I repeat, if this is what you consider the best of the article, you're making the nuke-from-orbit argument for me. ‑ Iridescent 21:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

other than in her actual field of the politics of music hall Where do you get that from? She's a historian who focuses on women's issues. See [27] & [28].

And I know that's not what you asked; it's what you left out. I also responded to what you asked by pointing out what should have been obvious to you, had you been less concerned with arguing and more concerned with communicating. See the second paragraph in it's entirety. And I also previously stated I'm not necessarily opposed to deleting the article. But if we're going to keep it, we need to fix is, and we can't fix it if some editor owns it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• I guess this has been posted, snowballed, and boomeranged a bit since I last turned my computer on (this place moves fast ;)). I see Talk:List of common misconceptions has a long archive history and it looked to me like they must have reached a consensus and some pretty common sense WP:LISTCRITERIA came out of it (I even mentioned my views on the LISTCRITERIA in talk) and at some point it got added in a 'Criteria for entries' template to the top of the page. Cleaning up the article to what the LISTDEF seemed add up to (a list of Articles that have a certain attribute - contain text describing a common misconception) got me accused of WP:OWN (and called a bunch of names to boot). Anyway, just responding since I have been named in this ANI. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

they must have reached a consensus... It took me 2 minutes to discover that no, in fact, they had not. One editor took it upon themself to create an edit notice. See my response to the IP above. What's your excuse for not doing the same research? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You have obviously stated you don't care what anyone else says (WP:IAR over WP:CONS) but here goes..... WP:LSC/common sense - when a LISTCRITERIA says "follow the people at the topic article if they seem to know what they are saying", well... that makes common sense. As I and other editors have said, if you disagree with that, start a discussion on the talk page to change the 'Criteria for entries'. You have a disagreement with that, not me. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You have obviously stated you don't care what anyone else says Quoth the guy arguing against three people and lying about what sources say...

(WP:IAR over WP:CONS) Not only is this a completely bullshit misrepresentation of what I said, but where is this consensus you speak of? I see a consensus of three editors that your objection to the Victorian content is bullshit. Is that it? My reference to IAR certainly isn't intended to override that, since I'm a part of that.

when a LISTCRITERIA says "follow the people at the topic article if they seem to know what they are saying", well... that makes common sense. Yeah, I agree. So why have you been reverting 9+ editors all by your lonesome?

You have a disagreement with that, not me. Even if that criteria is endorsed; you've already had your objections noted, responded to and dismissed by three different editors, yet you kept reverting. So no, in fact, I don't have a problem with that criteria. I have a problem with your behavior at that article. I might even !vote to delete that article if it came up at AfD: I'm of the opinion it's a shit show. I'd like to fix it, but if you want to nuke it, go to AfD and watch me change my tune. Otherwise, go away and let others at least try to fix it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

And so it goes (I knew even responding was a bad idea). lying about what sources say.. you must be reading this ANI with your fingers in your ears going "LA LA LA LA LA...". I think I will shut up now and let this boomerang go wherever its going. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It's all documented above. Pretending it's not doesn't mean no-one will read it. Also, you should read WP:SNOW and WP:BOOMERANG because I don't think you know what those terms mean. ;) But, here's the good news for you: Since it's pretty clear that the one thing we all agree on is that the article is a shitshow, I'll AfD it right now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (4th nomination). I've requested that the protecting admin add the AfD notice to the page. Maybe this will settle it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with the quality of the list then why are you arguing with the only person that seems remotely interested in maintaining a quality list. Also, you before wrote that you had a source that explicitly showed that Bryn had lied. Do you have any intention of quoting that source or removing your aspersion that Bryn lied? If not, why not?2601:646:8500:ECA0:A4D5:1A7D:819B:C1CF (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I've already linked to it. If you can't be bothered to read it, that's your problem, not mine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I've read both of your sources. Neither support the addition that was made. You accused someone of lying and said the source “explicitly” stated what was added. If this is true then what is the difficulty with quoting the statement from the source that supports the addition? You after all were the one who claimed Bryn lied which unsupported is an aspersion.2601:646:8500:ECA0:A4D5:1A7D:819B:C1CF (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

So now you're lying, too. Cool. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Instead of doubling down on your aspersion why do you not just quote the source? I accept I could be wrong. Do you think it is possible that instead of lying, Bryn and I just disagree on your interpretation of the source?2601:646:8500:ECA0:A4D5:1A7D:819B:C1CF (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The trollish nature of MPants edits should be noted including making inflammatory accusation and calling more than one editor here a liar, claiming to want to clean up an article and then attacking an editor who does and edit warring over the article, claiming there are no rules[29] then starting an ANI claiming an editor is breaking the rules, confronting almost every editor in this ANI, spinning off straight into an AfD of the same article after he was rebuffed. He quotes Wikipedia policy and guidelines ad nauseam so can not be ignorant as to what they mean. His launching a spurious ANI, and even an AfD he of the same article he was edit warring over and trying to expand, is very confusing. It seems to be more to inflame or invite conflict than any kind of WP:HERE behavior. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

His launching a spurious ANI, and even an AfD he of the same article he was edit warring over and trying to expand, is very confusing. Doesn't seem confusing to me at all. I care about the project, so I've pushed for a way to improve the project at every step. You decided you WP:OWNed the article, so I reported you here since the few editors actually making an effort to improve that crap weren't able to with your constant edit warring. Note that I'm neither the only nor even the first editor to accuse you of attempting to own that article. But when a bunch of editors hijacked this thread into an argument about content, I decided to take a different tact towards fixing it: AfD and rebuild.

You've already accused me of "name calling" for saying "Your objections at talk are complete spurious and have been addressed multiple times now" which is about the most hilariously over-sensitive accusation I've ever read, and now you're arguing that -because I finally dragged you here on something you've had pointed out to you multiple times by multiple editors- I'm NOTHERE? Hah! Good luck with that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Just commenting to say that the accused user has, in my brief experience with the user, misrepresented sources, used strained readings of criteria, and has generally been unhelpful in actually improving the article. Benjamin (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Carmaker1

Carmaker1 (talk · contribs)

This user has been adding unsourced and/or speculative information, editing against project consensus, and leaving edit summaries that border on incivility. He has been sanctioned for this behavior in the past (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive971#Formal topic ban suggestion and User talk:Carmaker1#June 2018).

Presently, Carmaker1 has been adding unsourced/speculative production dates to a number of automobile articles, and removing the model year dates that, per consensus, take precedence on articles about vehicles sold predominantly in North America (I won't attempt to rehash those discussions here, unless an administrator requests further background). Another editor and I have attempted to engage with the user on their talk page but have been ignored. While there is a legitimate concern in some cases (not all articles make it clear that model years are used), changing information to make the article confusing to the average person likely to read the article, instead of resolving the issue, makes it appear as though he's trying to prove some kind of point.

Further, Carmaker1 often uses an angry and borderline-uncivil tone in edit summaries, including calling out editors by name (examples: [30], [31], [32], [33]). The last one is a clear attack on another editor, which was followed up with an "only warning" - for an edit made nearly a year prior, which seems to be a great deal of effort to track down an editor simply to harass them. On a similar note, he issued an "only warning" here to an IP for a single edit which, while incorrect, seemed to have been made in good faith out of a misunderstanding.

Finally, the edit summary here of "I will not bother formatting the references..." further calls into question the user's ability to edit cooperatively. --Sable232 (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

This is disappointing. After discussion, I advocated for this user not being blocked in December 2017 after they pledged to stop making uncivil edit summaries regarding disputes over "model years" in articles (and they did stop for some time). I don't think that an indef is necessary yet, but unless they have some explanation for their edit summaries, a short block is called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It is tiring to deal with the fact, other users are NOT intervening and ensuring that prose of an article isn't misleading and collectively maintaining a consistency with certain content. I specialize in providing a timeline and background history for topics on Wikipedia. Generally beyond that, I often don't delve into other things, but I can see that a lot of articles are often tampered with either by, unregistered IPs sometimes adding information contradictory to text within that same article or users who don't engage in discussion/explanations at all, to get an idea of their intentions. The problem I do have is, why do other established users often fail to catch this, yet are so quick to notice edits from regulars doing "repairs" or expanding on information? I did not address Sable232 on my page let alone read what they said (until after the fact), because of anxiety borne from the aggressive approach they had already taken in doing full reverts on my edits, instead of manually removing specific content that truly didn't have a supported citation or provided to be genuinely off. In ways, one can call that lazy, as Buick did indeed introduce particular generations of Regal in 1987 and 1996. Not "in 1988" and "in 1997". Plus a design website for the Chevrolet Corsica program, claimed that the model went into production in late 1986 as a 1987 model (debunked; I found a better source for Jan 1987). My Chicago Tribune and Oklahoma sources supported the Regal dates (and more), yet instead of removing other parts of my submission separately, Sable entirely reverted all of it. That can be perceived as petty, if not rather vindictive and trying to prove a point. Second, in many cases, we have no way of determining if certain users make changes in good faith or to play with pages, versus using their own sandboxes to experiment. There is a difference between introducing new information in an article without a good source or explanation versus deliberately changing dates that already have citations, just to suit a misinformed point of view. Case in point, claiming GM introduced the C/K pickup in the 1960s or AMC introduced the Jeep Wrangler in 1987. Yet it has been proven by me that the former model in question was launched in 1959, which falls within the 1950s and the latter model was introduced in May 1986. And yet, when I take an absence from the stress of this site, I discover upon return, often that someone has again changed this kinds of items around and then I have to correct it for the 100th time, often manually bit-by-bit after many diffs in between. Why should I have to do that, when there is a massive amount of able users still here when I am not logged in? If one wants to talk about misleading others to prove a point, then why revert my corrections and expansion of the Regal and Century timelines, to vaguely-organized designations that already confuse many Americans as to how old their car really is? It is strictly of Sable's opinion, that my changes will "confuse" people, if not conjecture and manipulative, through canned personal offense towards me. The speculative information accusation reads unusually fallacious, based on the supported citations. This is a tactic designed to smear the work of the person in question, without looking too closely at what actually transpired and create negative opinion. My suggestion is, none of us should be reverting content with supported citations. I spent a very long time finding every bit and shred of past GM history, to edit those articles. As beyond a citation, how is one supposed to verify a submission? Invite the OEM in question "GM" into a lengthy Q&A per Wikipedia article? A citation is supposed to suffice, so color me rather annoyed by those puzzling reverts and feeling exhausted about having to fix the same things over and over, without anyone else taking up the mantle. Wikipedia is copied and pasted by so many people, that quality control is very important. We have many excellent users contribute, but why is that a lot of things fall between the lines and are not quickly corrected back to what they should be? I have never been interested in Wikilawyering over other users, but straight to the point. Editing this site at times is not very easy and can be very time-consuming, so some of us can take it very personal if we perceive our time is being wasted and if it is even being used constructively anymore. I value my time strongly. My edit summaries for that matter, are designed to call attention to certain phenomenons that can be improved on or eliminated by learning what is wrong. People are not going to be intimidated by that, but some of it can be toned down if the message is already gotten. Considering many of the terrible things said and done to me when I joined here years ago, I question some of this as possibly crying wolf based on difference of opinion. Anyway, introducing contradictory information is a big problem I have and that of opinionated guesstimates, as against credible information. It is very clear some people really do not exercise thorough research of a topic they are editing and in the process, introduce misleading information generically or undo the valid information in place of what they added. A good amount of us and myself particularly, spend countless hours doing research, which isn't fair when other people do not and are not exactly being called to task. The only reason I am being brought here, is because of my edit summaries and clear disinterest in Sable's own approach towards my contributions, despite having provided evidence for them. I never had any issues working with others, who manage to stay on the same page and do not turn editing into Wikilawyering exercise via opinionated viewpoints. I often thank users for useful contributions I didn't manage to make myself and who make the content of articles richer in level of informativeness. Surely there are plenty of users who do so and I never have issue with them, based on their genuinely collaborative approach to things. As opposed to users that give the impression, they essentially live to revert others edits, whether accurate or inaccurate. I will admit, I need to learn better how to deal with such types. In conclusion, you can see the content I introduced, all have sources, so where was the problem that led to reverting them anyhow? Did my criticism of poor use of prepositions and formatting of date-related language, offend people? Bsically I want and need other users, to pay attention to this aspect of Automotive project content. Getting the timelines and background history fully accurate. From I have observed, it is NOT given due care and attention by other users, meaning I am left to do it myself very often. For one model page it is easy, but for so many brands and models worldwide, that is overwhelming to be doing by yourself. The only time this is given any attention, is by one lone user doing a clean-up of an article and even then, they miss these things and do not care to verify them as accurate. Year-to-year there are major changes and advancements within the automotive industry, that it does matter within an encyclopedia to claim "X model was introduced with innovative Y features in 2000", when in reality that just might be April 1999 launch date (model year 2000) and December 1998 press reveal. It matters very much, but a few users have tried to imply in the past it doesn't and that I "care too much". People need a very good frame of reference, so they are not misled so easily. If someone needs to know about a window of time a product was manufactured or introduced, it doesn't do them any good to provided information that isn't to the point. This should be very easy stuff by rule of thumb. A MY is often introduced the preceding October and sometimes even earlier for many industry-related reasons. Even though I am an automotive engineer with 8 years of experience since internships to present, I don't hold that over others and welcome people to provide more than I can to Wikipedia, as I like to learn new things in that manner.--Carmaker1 (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Carmaker1: Please read this article. It is highly unlikely that anyone is going to read your comment unless you break it up into smaller sections, each based around a central idea. A "wall-of-text" such as this is virtually impossible to read, especially when it is very long: you are virtually inviting the response "TL;DNR" (i.e. "Too long; did not read"). If you wish your comment to be considered by other editors, please have some consideration for other editors and present your ideas in a fashion that effectively communicates them. If you are unable to do so, then you probably shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia in the first place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The personal attacks are certainly troublesome but definitely a symptom of a larger problem. Honestly, if Carmaker1 can't communicate how he/she is trying to improve the encyclopedia without insulting other editors, and as Beynond My Ken mentioned about Carmaker1's discussion style (and in the links provided by Sable232) then I think Carmaker1's ability to communicate in a collaborative manner needs to be evaluated. A quick look at this demonstrates Carmaker1's incapacity to communicate in a collaborate manner, which is a prerequisite to editing this project. —Mythdon 05:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have specific evidence of that claim of not being "collaborative" in the form of the majority of my entire edit history (every diff) being combative or non-collaborative? As unless more than a fifth or quarter of my whole edit history is proven to be as such dating back many years, I can only imagine that reads as slanted and rather a personal attack at my reservedness to not bother others for help so often and handle things myself. I edit pages mostly, but I do not frequently message back and forth between other individuals, as not everyone will respond in a timely fashion in which I can read their own response to me. Very few people respond to talk page discussions I have opened in articles and are only interested in monitoring people's edit history to revert. Most users are not like this thankfully, but a select few are as such and have gone to ANI as a threat.

There are many users who do not respond to comments left on their talk page or that of an article they edit in, yet no action is taken regarding that? As I already stated before, very few editors have taken the particular focus that I have towards editing these articles. No focus is made on in-depth, step-by-step timelines of development of cars, because of many editors seeming to have little to no personal interest there and thus only take interest in if a citation is present or to revert content, without checking to be sure it is okay. How will there be any collaboration, if a sub-topic is of little or no interest to other present editors?

It is hardly collaborative for someone micro-manage who can and cannot edit an article, because they favor "model years" as being the only item in an article, when both calendar and model years can written in an article, to explain and differentiate between the two. As busy as I am, I hardly even log in that much and I still see double standards in how these matters are being approached. European brand articles rarely suffer from this "dates" issue (until the topic concerns the US), as they either use both in conjunction (2017 as 2018 model) or simply introductory date (2017) and no reference to vehicle's year in question. It is usually Asian and US brands with contradictory article timelines that suffer this pattern I have tried to counteract on Wikipedia, as no one else helps because they generally don't care, meaning it is left to the person or people that do. Ask that question, as a fact is a fact and all I am doing is bringing them to the table if I can. If anyone wants to join me, the more, the merrier. I resent that no one takes the initiative in US brand articles to maintain the mentioned, the way other users do for non-US brands they care about such as user Stepho-wrs. Adding when a model changeover occurred in real time (year), is not nonconstructive editing.

As for the "Wall of Text" complaint, that is just a personal attack and not a valid criticism. Many other individuals have lengthy commentary at times, so referring to that as inconsiderate seems like finding any and everything to criticize. It is a challenge navigating posting to ANI. From what I even remember, I have never been someone that resorted to racist commentary or that of chasing topics related to supremacists as a hobby, in myself seeing all human beings as deserving of equality. I greatly question how no one finds that offensive, let alone some racism I have encountered from others. I am plainly not interested in playing politics here. I am here to edit and for others to respect my contributions, when researched and cited. I give others the same respect on average, so why shouldn't that be returned to me?

I have never gone stress-free on this website that I often hate reading messages or logging in bringing unwelcome anxiety, which says a lot about the environment and who knows how many other users feel similar. Many have never felt like they've belonged, unless they're an admin and end up retiring from this website User: OSX over unwelcome stress as simply volunteers. I don't know how many times I can say, a better collective grip on actual vandalism is needed. If a user reports a disturbing trend of editing and asks for page to be locked, please listen to them then. I am plainly tired of all this, regarding productivity. I have made many contributions, so why won't I take offense to certain one-sided viewpoints that don't take everything into account? Simply over some mild editing summaries? Yet I have seen people use curse words or foul language with no reprimand? I have work to do.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

QED. EEng 12:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Carmaker1: "As for the "Wall of Text" complaint, that is just a personal attack and not a valid criticism. Many other individuals have lengthy commentary at times, so referring to that as inconsiderate seems like finding any and everything to criticize. " It may seem to be a personal attack, but as was linked before it's not very useful to have such long replies. You may feel like you need to reply with this much, but you actually don't. Sorry to be clunt blunt, but we're all volunteers here, and some of us have other things to do than read this amount of text. If you condense it down to just the key points, we're much more likely to read all of it and not risk overlooking important details. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC) edited 00:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC) for typo as pointed out by EEng

It might help if you were just a tiny bit less clunt, if you ask me. EEng 20:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 00:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Having read through the above paragraphs, it seems that the issues at hand may not be quite clear.

Carmaker1, I have explained multiple times that you are editing against consensus to introduce information that, to the average person likely to read the article, is inaccurate. Your edit summaries are often uncivil and you assume bad faith on the part of virtually everyone who's ever edited an article you've read - in your statements above you continue to portray yourself as fighting legions of devious editors intentionally holding back article quality, and make a number of accusations of bad faith against me personally.

You attempt to justify your aggressive edit summaries because they "call attention" to something, yet say you were given anxiety by my supposedly "aggressive" approach of reverting a small number of your edits in addition to explaining on your talk page why I did so.

(At risk of delving into too much technical detail in this venue: The average U.S. or Canadian Wikipedia reader does not care whether their 2018 Honda was built in December 2017 or January 2018. It's a 2018 model, it was sold as a 2018, is titled as a 2018, and was built under the regulatory requirements of the 2018 model year. The average reader is going to expect that year-to-year changes be listed in model years; exact production dates (as well as the dates of press presentations and when the vehicle went on sale) are of interest primarily to enthusiasts. If the article says "in 1996, engine output increased...", the vast majority of North American readers are going to assume that means the model year, because that's when the change was made. Regardless of one's opinion on the system's merits, it is irretrievably interwoven into the industry.) --Sable232 (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

We appreciate your ==>"DRIVING"<== that point home. EEng 01:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Just to note that Sable232's footnote is entirely sensible, and if that is indeed a representation of consensus (and I assume it is) Carmaker1 ought to follow it or, if they regularly edit against that consensus, be topic banned from the subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Mass creation of sock spam accounts

Hi everyone! There have been ongoing attempts by someone (or someones) to engage in the mass creation of spam accounts with similar usernames for quite some time, but it has since picked up substantially starting the other day. One example out of many that were verified by a CU (after I brought it to their attention) is 대학생 김괘걸, and represents one out of the at least 30 others that were blocked.

As I type this ANI discussion right now, I'm currently keeping a huge floodgate under control regarding the very high number of sock puppet spam account creations. If you see my recent block log, as well as this edit filter log, you'll have an idea of just how many I'm currently managing and keeping contained at this very moment right now... accounts like 33最新弹窗引流协议无限发271383970, 63新弹窗271383970万事如意, and 新弹窗27138970妨仕涸频油扰 (to just name a few). I'm keeping them handled, blocked, and declined by the edit filter for the most part and the project has been mostly been protected from this flooding, but I'm sure that there are many more that I've missed and didn't block. I've been at this for about 3 straight hours now, and I'm probably going to be continuing to keep it handled throughout the night. The edit filter has been great with scooping up most of the account as they try and get created, but I keep having to update it as their M.O. changes in order to get around my previous updates to it (it happens about every 10-15 minutes).

Can I have some CU assistance with locating the underlying networks and ranges that this is all coming from? Can I have some more eyes on this so we can put a stomp on it? I'm doing my best to keep this all under control, but I'm sure that there are more accounts that I've missed due to them using different usernames I didn't catch... I appreciate any help and assistance in advance :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: It looks like the rate of the attempted account creations have dropped to pretty much zero now. I haven't seen anything come into the new user or edit filter logs for about 20 minutes now, and I'm not seeing an attempt to sneak new accounts through with a username pattern that's completely different. The creation attempts may very well pick right back up as suddenly as it stopped (I've seen them do this purposefully in the past), so I'm taking this with a grain of salt right now. I'll keep this discussion updated or add another follow-up if things change. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a big ISP. Lots of /11s. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - Yeeeap, that's what I figured... are these IPs they're using open proxies? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

No, they are using single IPs in disparate ranges nullifying range blocking. They are popping through these and trying to make an account or three and then they move on.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Berean Hunter - Oh fun...... that's not going to complicate things at all... /s. Oh, I forgot to ask: were there any significant groups of accounts with similar usernames that I didn't catch or block? The usernames changed formats and were re-arranged quite a number of times in order to purposefully change their M.O. and get past the filters I put in place, but they generally all stayed similar enough to where you could quickly catch what they were throwing. I'm curious to know if they used other methods to sneak them by. I wouldn't be surprised that, given the high rate in which these accounts were trying to flood in, he didn't use that as a distraction to sneak in completely different accounts while the focus was drawn toward the flood... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, I didn't see anything that the filter or you didn't catch. They may use one to three IPs in unrelated ranges and are cycling through them quickly. I have checked seven /16 ranges and there appear to be many more; I'm not sure if it is worthwhile to keep checking.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on this for a while. To echo what Berean Hunter said, there are lots of /11 ranges involved. For those who can't read CIDR, that's a lot of big. If it gets extreme we have filter 895 which can block all Chinese names created on this wiki. There are not many Chinese names created on this wiki. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Zzuuzz! Exactly! Wikipedia gets extremely little accounts created that are in Chinese; that's how I caught what was going on quickly and why keeping the flood under control actually wasn't that terribly difficult or too much for me to do alone ;-). Correct; /11 CIDR ranges are massive, regardless if you're talking about an IPv4 /11 or an IPv6 /11 (an IPv6 /11 would be... stupid to use... lol). That fact aside, we can't even apply blocks larger than /16 in IPv4 or /48 in IPv6 - so even if we were utterly crazy enough to apply such a large block, we couldn't do it anyways... lol. Alright, that's good to know; thanks for checking and for letting me know that you didn't see any other accounts that snuck through. I just try to think in terms of, "okay, if I were the troll here, what would I do?" - I find that if I peruse those avenues, I end up either catching more disruption or taking steps to close doors and prevent more trolling ;-). Berean Hunter, if you haven't stopped diving through /16 ranges in order to look into the contribs and activity of the larger /11 ranges, I'd just stop doing so. With the information you both provided to me here regarding what they're doing, there's really not much that can be done... don't waste your time looking for something that you know won't be there ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You can block up a /19 on IPv6: see mw:Manual:$wgBlockCIDRLimit. I wouldn't recommend it, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hoi hoi, just noticed the pattern in some of their accounts 271383970 and blacklisted them on Meta. (well they'll find new patterns soon but anyway) — regards, Revi 14:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

And gonna use the magic 8 ball... hold on. — regards, Revi 14:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

-revi - Add 27138970 as a blacklisted term on Meta as well (it's the same number as yours but with a '3' missing). They started using that number in creations instead and after I added the first number to the edit filter to reject them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — regards, Revi 14:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC) (added — regards, Revi 14:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC))

Since it's already late in my timezone (10 minutes before tomorrow), I just did a quick check suspecting xwiki spamming, nothing showed up till now. — regards, Revi 14:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

2601:246:ca00:9ff2:1df9:fd87:4c24:5429/64

These accounts have been adding nonsense to various articles as seen in their contributions. I think we need to make a range block for them so they don’t vandalize any articles again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B06A:DE42:3805:B5F4:D0A8:2DB7 (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for creating a discussion here to report your concerns. I look at look at the contributions for this range, and they haven't made any edits since yesterday (and of those were only two edits). I obviously can't do anything now, since time has passed and it would be pointless. Just keep an eye on the contributions from this range, and let us know if disruption continues and during the time it's currently going on. We'll be happy to take another look and (if needed) proceed with action in order to stop the disruption. Thanks again for expressing your concerns here, and I wish you a great day and happy editing :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Continued genre warring after block

Power G (original) (talk · contribs) has been changing genres without consensus, with or without reliable sources and has not heeded multiple warnings. Reporting here because disruptive editing such as genre warring have been increasingly denied at WP:AIV. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 16:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem could be solved if the "genre" parameter were removed from infoboxes entirely. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 16:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: Yes, let's hope that discussion fixes things, but this request needs attention today. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking over Power G (original)'s editing history, I don't think there's anything drastically alarming here. Many of these edits seem to fall into the realm of WP:BOLD and WP:BRD, but I'll admit, I'm seeing more BR and less D than should be happening. Once you've made a few changes and had them reverted, it's time to consider that your opinions (and, certainly, assigning music genres is a matter of opinion) may not jive with community consensus. So, I'd suggest backing off on the genre changing. If you find a music article where you disagree with the genre assignment, discuss it first on the article's talk page. Maybe people will agree with you, and then you're good to go ahead and make the change. Maybe they won't, in which case I'd say there's plenty of other work to be done, so move on and find other ways you can improve the encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@RoySmith: You should post this on Power G (original) talk page. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

He was pinged here. I'm assuming he'll see it here. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Second SemiHypercube's suggestion that Wikipedia stop trying to comment authoritatively on the genre of bands. It's rare that there will be an unambiguous genre agreed on by reliable sources for any band. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"Yes, let's hope that discussion fixes things, but this request needs attention today." No it doesn't. He's made one edit yesterday. If you want something that needs urgent attention, hang around and wait for the vandal who spams hardcore porn on today's featured article repeatedly over multiple IPs. In fact I would suggest that FlightTime takes a voluntary 1RR restriction on all articles. It will get him out of trouble. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Hello, I'd like to bring your attention to a disruptive editor at M*A*S*H (season 10). The editor going by the name __173.235.84.234 was engaged in an argument with another editor regarding production codes of MASH episodes. No one provided citations supporting their points. I entered argument as a 3rd opinion against my better judgement (you will see my note on the talk page about how I felt I should decline the 3rd opinion due to hostility but decided to weigh in anyways).

I went to an episode and pulled screen caps that settled the argument in __173.235.84.234's favor. This editor then made the edits, but included several hostile hidden messages warning others not to change the information again. I reverted the edit with a note telling the editor to just make their edit and that the hidden messages were over the top. The editor has now attempted to move the argument to my talk page, but I have stated that I will not be engaging with the editor any further. This editor's actions have been combative and hostile throughout and does not seem able to engage in a civil discussion. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 20:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

On second review, their message on my talk page is not as argumentative as I first took it, however, the hidden codes, dramatic argumentation, and lack of collaborative spirit are still issues that should be addressed with the editor. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 20:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

BATTLEGROUND and SPA by Iwog

• Iwog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• False accusation of rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iwog today expressed that "This page is overflowing with errors, deception, and bias and I think it's worth going to war over regarding an issue on False accusation of rape ([34]). This user has edited solely on this article and its associated talk page. They made a few edits initially over the presentation of percentages in the article's lead and later adding a sentence to the lead that, to me, appeared to be a tendentious edits to try to comment about the "flip" of the topic ([35], [36]). This user has repeatedly opined about the "bias", "lies", and "dishonesty" in the article and that the lead is "written intentionally to deceive".

I am requesting admins and/or the community review this user's behavior. To me, this user's behavior seems very disruptive. I know I have stronger-than-average feelings about this topic, so I'm also asking for a "reality check" that this user is indeed being a problem and that it is not my own stances on the issue making me view their behavior as such. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. It seems like this editor is more interested in pushing their POV rather than interest in verifiability. In fact, this editor mentions "accuracy" multiple times in edit summaries [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. In the third diff, the editor engages in the fallacy that the truth is always "somewhere in the middle". Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and it's clear that this editor isn't here to contribute to the project but to crusade against perceived underreporting of false rape. The editor even says they're "going to war", which is good evidence that they're viewing this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and not engaging with the project in good faith. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 22:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The main complaint against me seems to be one of semantics. Since I'm new here, I was not aware that "going to war for truth" made my contributions into a battleground and you will find the rest of the subject is treated objectively. Although links were given for my use of the word "accuracy", no links nor any quotes were given that in any way indicated I was insisting "the truth is in the middle". I am well aware that this topic is rife with strong emotions on both sides which makes it vitally important that it is treated coldly and objectively. IMO the article is far from objective and contains much bias which I have detailed in great length. The accusation that I am not here to contribute is false. I am only here to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwog (talk • contribs) 23:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing my actual quote, "The actual number lies somewhere in the middle", I will clarify that my intention was to say the true number can lie anywhere within the data set bracketed by both known ends of the spectrum. I can see how this was misinterpreted. At no time did I ever intend to claim a number was half way in between or located anywhere within the set of unknowns. This is not a fallacy, in fact it's a statement of mathematical fact. Iwog (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Can I suggest to you that maybe you should start with topics you don't feel so strongly about first, then? You should learn the ropes first before diving into articles that have the discretionary sanctions warning. For example, read up on WP:V. Accuracy is not a standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. You can believe whatever you want is "accurate", but we only include content that is verifiable. You don't seem to have a grasp of basics like these so I recommend that you edit in other areas first rather than edit war against multiple editors. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Once again I have to take issue with your use of semantics here. I am not using the term "accuracy" to indicate anything other than adherence to the citations being presented. In short, the way I am using the term is ONLY about statements on the page being verifiable.Iwog (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Added: This is the first instance you cited: [42] It is clear that I am arguing for the inclusion of a large set of unknowns which is present in every single study being referenced. It's obvious that "accuracy" here means adherence to facts that can be verified. Iwog (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

We've actually already explained to you that including the conviction rate with the fully intended implication of "any report that doesn't result in a conviction is or could be false" is a WP:OR violation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes you've explained it but you are wrong. Currently the implication is "any report that cannot be prove false is true". Please explain how this isn't a WP:OR violation since every study admits unknowns exceeding 80%? Iwog (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That implication is also present in virtually all of the published research on this and every other kind of crime victimization: crime stats are usually based reported crimes, and these victimizations presumed true unless there is evidence that an assault did not happen. To be clear, "evidence" is a much lower standard than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" - the figures reported in the research don't represent "proven" false allegations at all, they represent allegations where there was a good reason to believe the accusation was false. Perhaps you think we should record crime victimizations differently, but Wikipedia adheres to reliable sources. Nblund ^talk 15:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Iwog, in this revert that you describe as "far more accurate," you add text reading Likewise it is also generally agreed upon only about 1 to 5% of total rape allegations will lead to a conviction by a court of law and can be presumed to be true. This asserts, without evidence, that "conviction by a court of law" and "can be presumed to be true" are synonymous... yet a failure to convict can occur because the jury thinks an accusation is true but is not convinced beyond all reasonable doubt. It can occur when 11 jurors are utterly convinced and one hold-out is being stubborn for reasons unrelated to the case. It can occur because the evidence relating to sexual assaults can be thin as such crimes often happen in private locations without witnesses and as victims may not immediately report, resulting in a lack of corroborating physical evidence. Convictions can also occur when the evidence is thin and the jury is biased - look at the number of unsafe convictions that have occurred due to racial prejudice, as one example. Do you maintain that a jury conviction is needed for a victim's statement that s/he was raped to be presumed to be true? EdChem (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Iwog is a pure WP:SPA and obviously came into WP hot; this is pretty obvious subtweeting of the Kavanaugh matter. I propose a TBAN for anything related to gender-relations under the gamergate DS; any admin can do this. This person needs to stay away from this topic that is too-charged for them, and try to learn what we do here and how we do it, on non-controversial topics. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I would support this. Iwog's userpage suggests a pretty close connection to the Men's Rights Movement - I don't think this necessarily precludes them from ever editing productively on gender issues, but they clearly have more passion than knowledge and they need time to learn the ropes elsewhere. Nblund ^talk 15:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't believe men's rights activists can ever productively edit on gender topics unless they show proof that they're genuinely remorseful and denounce it. Men's rights activism is hate speech and has no place on the encyclopedia. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree++. Suggest topic ban from gender and sexuality, broadly construed, per the GamerGate Discretionary Sanctions--Jorm (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Irish neutrality during World War II please

I think some admin eyes would be beneficial at Irish neutrality during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 51.37.225.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has a "different" view of the nomenclature to be used, and has not responded to a request on his talk page to use the article talk page to discuss his position. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

That might not be a good idea because you would probably end up blocked for a 3RR violation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know that some admins would rather block editors who try to get people to use talk pages, than do fuck all about POV warriors. DuncanHill (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I sometimes edit content relating to Ireland. And working which way to handle some IP edits like this are a right pain. In future it may be best to start with a Template:Welcome-anon-unsourced and escalate if necessary. It may also be worth bring to the attention of Wikiproject Ireland who should be able to give project guidance on contentious issues. At the moment the admins would likely say its a content dispute. Thankyou. (I'm not an admin .. just watching dues to another ANI dispute) Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for three days, which hopefully would encourage the IP editor to communicate since they seem to be editing in good faith although with misguided effort. Not exactly a content dispute when the existing consensus for this context seems rather clear to me as described in WP:IRE-IRL. On a side note it is much more difficult to attract attention for topic areas with less traffic like this one, and it is frustrating indeed. There is no need to take all matters in your own hands; after third revert, just report it right away. Alex Shih (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked "for edit-warring after previous warnings" but I made no edits after the warning

I was blocked by @Ymblanter: "for edit-warring after previous warnings". The warning was issued at 12:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC), made no edits since, and yet got blocked. (note: I did not break the 3 reverts rule, I asked for third opinion and I was waiting for a response). I believe it is each editor's duty to report any improper actions or even minor errors of administrators if (s)he ever confronts one. On can find the discussion at my [User talk:Τζερόνυμο#September 2018|talk page].Τζερόνυμο (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Τζερόνυμο. Although I sympathise with your position, I recommend that you read WP:EDITWAR. In particular, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring". The 3RR is one indication of edit warring, however it is not a definition of it. I assume that you were blocked for your behavior prior to being given the warning, rather than after it. William Harris • (talk) • 10:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning William Harris •. I tried to explain why it was not an edit war in my Talk Page, though I understand why others can have a different opinion. Nevertheless, this is not the point here. The main argument is that I was told that I was warned, I did not edit a single time since the warning, and yet, I got blocked after previous warnings. Doesn't make sense and I want to make sure that this is not a normal practice. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe this is the wording of a standard "block" template that was dropped onto your Talk page - perhaps an administrator might now further enlighten us on that. William Harris • (talk) • 10:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I had a quick look at this. Firstly, Ymblanter didn't say which article you were edit warring on, so I have to assume it was the slow-burning edit war on Criticism of Christianity. However, the article was full-protected by Dlohcierekim around the time of the block, so in my opinion a block was unnecessary and superfluous. In general, we block after no post-warning edits because we don't trust that an editor will stop edit-warring even after warning, often given previous behaviour or a look at their track record. (I'm not saying that's what happened here, just explaining the reason why admins might consider it). However, Ymblanter said you were welcome to contest the block and he would not contest any overturning of it; you appealed and your appeal was successful (albeit because no admin got round to looking at it before the block expired). Elsewhere, there is a proposal Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Per-user page, namespace, and upload blocking, and once that's implemented it means you shouldn't ever get a full block in this sort of situation. All in all, I think everyone was talking a bit at cross purposes, and I don't think Ymblanter has any issue with you being unblocked now, I think it's best we put the issue to bed and move on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Might be worth putting in a one-second block so that the log will show that the previous appeal was accepted. Otherwise it just looks like a big permanent red mark that will be used against this editor later. Reyk _YO! 11:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, William Harris, there was no 3RR violation here - you need to have made 4 or more reverts within 24 hours. Look at the dates. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

At no stage did I say there was a 3RR violation. I was elaborating on the policy. William Harris • (talk) • 11:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Quadruple (edit conflict) with Ritchie333, you're killing me here. The standard block template, or any template, should not be used if its wording is not appropriate; by using the template, Ymblanter took responsibility for what it says. I don't think it would have killed him to acknowledge that, rather than giving the user a runaround when they complained.[43] Τζερόνυμο did receive an edit warring warning in May 2018, but that's probably not what Ymblanter is referring to. Anyway, that warning was a warning, not warnings. Ymblanter suggested Τζερόνυμο should post an unblock request in the usual way, which they did, but the block was only for 31 hours, and expired before an uninvolved admin came to the page to evaluate it. If it had been me, I would have unblocked, rather than refer to our slow bureaucracy for evaluating a 31-hour block. It seems to me this user has got the short end of the stick, and there should be a note in their previously clean block log that the block had not been preceded by a warning. Ritchie333, you say Ymblanter said he would not contest any overturning of the block. Where did he say that? I can't find it. Bishonen | talk 11:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

I read "You are welcome to post an unblock request as detailed in the above notice, it will be evaluated by an uninvolved administrator" as indicating he was okay with an unblock. Or at least, that's how I work when I recommend someone I blocked file an unblock request. I don't disagree with your view that Ymblanter should not have blocked and the block puts an unwelcome stain on a perfectly good editor - I totally agree with it; I just think the best option is to resolve to do better next time, rather than beat up Ymblanter for "admin abuez". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me suggest to us all - aggrieved editor included - that we should now be looking at what the editor's record should read, rather than us chasing after over-worked and under-pressure admins. William Harris • (talk) • 11:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• (From the train) Indeed, I blocked Τζερόνυμο for edit-warring in Criticism of Christianity which I believe was the only article they were active in for the time being. I was responding at a RFPP request, and, after looking at the edit history, came to the conclusion that blocks are the best solution. At the same time, Dlohcierekim came to the conclusion that protection is the best solution. This is fine, we are among the most active admins and respect each other decisions, though we do not always agree. We conflicted; when I started looking at the article it was not yet protected. Indeed, blocks AND protection are clearly too much, and after Dlohcierekim learned bout the blocks they decided to lift the protection, and the blocks stood. In the hindsight, I see that I could have communicated better to Τζερόνυμο what article I was talking about (I guess they understood here anyway) and what warning I was talking about (I meant indeed the May warning about edit-warring). It is unfortunately that they were unblocked only after the block expires, but were they unblocked in time I would not contest the unblock. I am generally a supporter of the second opinion strategy in doubtful cases. If Τζερόνυμο raised the warning issue immediately after the block when they communicated with me, I would definitely clarified what warning I meant. They have chosen instead to take me to ANI after the unblock, however, I still believe the block was good.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  Blocking was indeed quite reasonable as they were the two warriors disrupting. I unprotected so the other 5,000,000 Wikipedists would no longer be encumbered. I considered blocking, but wanted to give them a chance to stop on their own. BTW, these are experienced users who know better. I find coming here to complain about it after the disruption they caused even more disruptive. They both bloody well knew better than to edit war and I think were both beyond the point where blocking was understandable and shouldn't have expected to continue until someone said, "Oh, pretty please, do stop with sugar on top."-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

That is not correct. Τζερόνυμο used the talk page. He got a third opinion. He only reverted when he thought he had consensus. This isn't some mad edit warrior going "revert", "revert", "revert", "revert". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: "If Τζερόνυμο raised the warning issue immediately after the block when they communicated with me, I would definitely clarified what warning I meant." No, they did raise it immediately after the block when they communicated with you, saying "I have not reverted or undone anything, after a previous warning was issued at 12:02, 26 September 2018". Clearly they didn't know you were talking about the May warning, and you did not clarify it in your reply. (Did you even actually think of that warning at the time of the block?) Yes, it is unfortunate that they were "unblocked" only after the block expired, i. e. they weren't unblocked at all. But then that often happens with short blocks, which is the reason I said that if I'd been you, I would have unblocked by myself. Now we have a dubious block and a user has a block in their previously clean block, with nothing logged about an unblock, as well as a dubious block notice on their page. I don't think this is an ideal way to treat users who are clearly doing their best. It's likely to leave them with the impression that admins will never admit fault, and other admins will always have their back. And no, Dlohcierekim, it's hardly disruptive to take it to ANI. Users are allowed to do that. I think you're a fine admin , Ymblanter, but I don't think these actions and this resulting combination of circumstances show you at your best. I ask you to put a note about the lack of warning, and the potential unblock, in Τζερόνυμο's log. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

Yes, I checked the warnings and I blocked because of the May warning, otherwise I would have just warned. Ok, indeed, it looks I misunderstood what they were saying. Note however that the unblocking admin, Huon, rejected the explanation that the user just followed the dispute resolution procedures.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I noted it, and I did not claim Τζερόνυμο was white as snow. That's not my point. Please consider my request, instead of electing to be outraged by the user's failure to apologize. I really don't see him behaving outrageously in any of his comments after the block, so please don't take the path of outrage, as you do below. Please turn back, and take your own misunderstandings into account. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

I am not sure what is expected of me now. I can not unblock anymore. I do not expect the user to apologize.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I see now. No, I am sorry. I blocked because of the May warning. I would have likely block again, but would unblock if I understood the complaint of the user properly.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I can add the link to this discussion with my comments.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I am astonished! I followed the flow-chart for disputes, tried not to break any 3RR, not even by proximity, I asked twice for 3rd opinion, though I was accused of edit warring after "warnings" (there was a warning some months ago, is it still valid for any suspected edit warring? If the answer is yes, what is the need of another edit warning?). And when came here to report a minor incidence I thought fallacious (which I think there must be a way to report trivialities) I am accused of disruption along with ironic comments? Sorry for questioning the acts of admins, but I am not that experienced user to know that I shouldn't report admin's action when I think they are wrong. Plus, why I got here, actually I didn't know where to report the incidence and so I asked the Help Desk (diff or see here). @Ymblanter: no hard feelings, it is not personal, I just didn't get what was going on with the warnings. Plus, I didn't get whether I was unblocked or not. Next time, hopefully never but who knows, will I be blocked for more than 31h? If, or when I apply for administrator, will this be a black stain in my record? (trying to be friendly here) Τζερόνυμο (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that you now say you have never broke any policies in this episode, and I just abused the tools by blocking you without any factual violation? This is indeed how I understood your message right after the block. I disagree with this description of the situation, and this is why I did not unblock you. (If instead you have said "Sorry, I went too far, but next time will not do it" I would most likely unblocked, but this is irrelevant now).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I say that I did not break any rule, but I understand why many good willing third parties may think by looking at the history, that I actually broke the Reverting policy. That's why I did not complain in here for the edit-war, but only for the warning. I moreover understand that by saying "sorry" I would probably got unblock, but I would be a hypocrite as I don't think so. I think it doesn't really matter, but let me explain once more: I have never reverted a certain edit more than 3 times. There were two separate edits/material that the one followed the other after a period of a couple of days. The first dispute was resolved with a third opinioner. The second dispute was -and still is- waiting for a third opinioner. As I understand the rules and the policies, I didn't break any of them (I understad that I may not know the policies very well) But I understand that if you just look at the history log....it definitely looks as edit war. Ok, that was my last edit in here, unless someone asks me specifically to clarify something. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Τζερόνυμο: One short block for edit warring is not going to affect an RfA. It's really not a big deal. It may well be used as an aggravating factor if continued edit warring behavior is ever reported, unless Ymblanter chooses to update your block log as has been requested. @Ymblanter: I'm not sure where you're getting that. I think it's clear that they're just saying they tried to do the right thing, made a conscious effort to pursue dispute resolution and avoid crossing the brightline, and also that it doesn't make sense to block for breaching a months-old warning when somebody else has already re-warned them, which they had listened to. (Swarm ♠ talk) 19:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess I see the point now. I blocked Τζερόνυμο at 12:03, without seeing the warning by Dlohcierekim, which they left at 12:02, but only logged the block at 13:01. I do not know now why, but the whole this week I was on a research visit, probably someone just came to talk to me and I decided I will log the block later. This is clearly not ok. If I blocked it right away, I would have edit-conflicted with Dlohcierekim, I would have noticed the warning, and likely understood the context of the whole discussion. In the future, I will try to avoid the situation when I potentially can not log the block (or the protection) immediately. Clearly my fault here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: when you tell the user, a little higher up on this page, that "If instead you have said 'Sorry, I went too far, but next time will not do it' I would most likely unblocked", I did take it as resentment that the user argued instead of apologizing, yes. You have responded to me, also higher up, that "I am not sure what is expected of me now. I can not unblock anymore". What I've been asking you repeatedly to do is make a one-second block in order to add a comment about the now expired block, to acknowledge that it was dubious, and yes, why not with a link to this discussion. But I think you probably meant that you could add such a link on the user's page, or something like that? Please could you tell me unambiguously that you will, or will not, annotate the block log? And please consider that people tend to assume far too easily that a block no longer matters when the user is no longer blocked. It does matter. People take their block logs seriously. Not me, I'm proud of mine, but you see Τζερόνυμο is worried about his, especially since he's considering running for admin in the future. I agree with Swarm that a short edit warring block shouldn't matter in an RFA; but I've seen frequently that it does. (BTW, Ymblanter, you did log the block at 12:03, one minute after Dlohcierekim's warning. The reason the block notice says 13:00 is that you didn't subst it, so AnomieBOT did — at 13:00.) Bishonen | talk 20:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

For me, blocks are serious business. I am not against a one second block saying that block resulted from an adit conflict with a warning, and I would possibly not blocked if I have seen the warning. But I would like to first see that there is if not consensus that such a short block is acceptable at least no consensus that it is not acceptable. There are some users who would be happy to report me to ArbCom for misuse of admin tools, should they find any.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Very well, I'm tired of going on and on about it, I'll annotate the log myself. I'm sorry you find my arguments unpersuasive; I won't repeat them further. As for "misuse of admin tools", surely the world isn't as black and white as that. I'm not accusing you of "misusing admin tools". We've all made dubious blocks, no doubt. Bishonen | talk 20:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

I am sorry that we did not manage to hear each other in this episode.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. Bishonen | talk 20:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

"Taslimson Foundation"

Recently there's been instances of IP users adding references to a "Taslimson Foundation" without any merits to the article - and seems to be straight up false information. Alternatively, adding ref tags saying nothing except "Taslimson Foundation"

False info : [44], [45], [46]

Ref tags : [47], [48], [49]

I strongly suspect a PR SEO spam. Juxlos (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

There's something going on here, though I'm not sure what. It doesn't seem severe enough to need an edit filter as there are no current results for "Taslimson" in mainspace; the IPs also don't seem to be in a clear range. The last diff is your own removal of this spam; it was added in this diff. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

'Incel' Article Ownership Dispute - Admin Ownership of page against site guidelines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GorillaWarfare, an admin, against wikipedia conduct policy [50] has assumed ownership of the controversial 'incel' article [51] when no one is supposed to do so. Vigorously reverting my own edits, or thylacloop5, or Amin, and a bunch of other uncoordinated registered editors. She has written/tone-policed (ownership) most of the content after the Minassian attack and along with another veteran, for the (purpose of reverting along WP:Tendentious_editing#Righting_great_wrongs lines for months, but not sure how relevant that is to this board). In a declined Arbcom case [52] (for not going to this board and others for dispute resolution), editor Thylacoop5 had notified myself that he had notified Gorilla of violating the ownership rule, he did so here in late May diff.

Editors are told to use BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS. But with the exception of the latest edit cycle during/after the arbcom submission and maybe a couple other examples, almost any *meaningful* edits by users other than Gorilla and one or two other veterans go EDIT --> REVERT ---> languishes in talk page. With such a large, long dispute it's hard to provide all the examples of Gorilla reverting without it turning into a NPOV argument or list of dozens of diffs, but the frequency of her reverts and dominant stance on the talk page tells most of the story. The reason I'm all over the talk page is because that's what is required to just make any changes to the article, but this isn't about me or my changes, it's about all the users who want to use their op-ed instead of Gorilla's, just hedging myself in case someone wants to make it about me.Willwill0415 (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you serious with this? Your arbcom case was declined as being without merit. Do you really want to have this boomerang happen to you? You've shown yourself to be lacking in competence so I don't think this is going to any better for you. --Jorm (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Editor with 465 edits, of which 325 have been to Incel and its talkpage, and whom was quite clearly told that they were in danger of a boomerang at the AC case, now raises exactly the same issue again? I can't think that's a particularly bright idea, to be honest. Incidentally Willwill0415, User:Thylacoop5 said at the same AC case that once they had discussed any issues with GW, they "enjoy working with GW and she has taught me a lot about how to edit Wikipedia - sort of like a mentor.". I'd suggest a topic ban from gender-related issues to save wasting anyone else's time. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I already explained why I'm all over the talk page. I've contributed to multiple topics and articles, including ewarren farrell (edit: I mean Warren Mosler, the economist, not farrell), stephanie kelton, hypergamy, men's rights liberation etc. Jorm, It was declined because normal dispute resolution wasn't used beforehand, you were the 'other veteran user' mentioned in the comment you responded to, but your co-operation with Gorilla in their ownership of the article isn't against wiki guidelines AFAIK. To suggest I be topic banned for using a talk page obsessively as told to, but that Jorm shouldn't be topic banned for his obvious political motive RE:the relevant article [53], is silly Willwill0415 (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You've edited nine articles, ever (ten if you include talk pages). And most of those were related to Incel (Toronto Van Attack) or MRM (Men's liberation movement, Manosphere). Only 25 edits have been outside these areas. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Warren Mosler, Stephanie Kelton etc are subjects in Modern Monetary economics. # of edits doesn't correspond to how much I've added to any page. AFAIK only once sentence from me is in the incel article, after a re-write from Gorilla. To use Gorilla's obstruction of me and others as reason to topic ban me is not civil. Also, my not using the preview button enough on the talk page inflates the edit numbers by a lot. But this isn't about me, this is about Gorilla's violation of [54]. The reason I have hundreds of edits in the talk page of incel is because that's how much it took to add something to the incel article when an admin dominates the talk page and revert process and owns the page in violation of [55]. Willwill0415 (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban as proposed above. Complete failure to WP:IDHT. To be honest, GW reverted very few edits by WW, and this thread in my opinion constitutes harassment because GW has been the opposite of what is described here, i.e. GW has moved away from editing the Incel article. wumbolo ^^^ 18:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  Probably a little weird for me to chime in with this, but I haven't moved away from editing the article. It remains one of my focuses—it just hasn't been edited recently by anyone, and I haven't seen any new sourcing I could use to edit it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Boomerang Topic banning Willwill0415 would seem an appropriate response to taking a go at GW here for what look like perfectly righteous edits. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• I've contributed to multiple topics [lists a bunch of articles in the exact same topic] Yeah, I'm gonna go with Topic ban the OP, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't see how Warren Mosler (sorry not Farrell), Stephanie Kelton etc are related to inceldom. Incorrect.Willwill0415 (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Boomerang. Support topic banning Willwill0415 from sexuality, feminism, men's rights, and gender issues, broadly construed.--Jorm (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on GorillaWarfare and Jorm for incel-article GorillaWarfare (together with Jorm) has been a very dominant contributor to the article since it's inception. This has been detrimental to the neutrality of the article as it is heavily skewed to whatever she decides makes it through. I've already given up on contributing to the article. I'm not sure if anything will change, I just hope we can at least get some exposure for this incident. Jorm even admitted his stance on incels here: "As to my opinions about "incels": I don't think that anyone is "involuntarily celibate". It's a stupid term made up to allow dudes who have no interest in developing any game to foist the blame for their failures onto other people". I know a college-educated, 162cm tall, Indian man who lives in the Wests. Try telling him that his lack of "game" is why women disqualify him, and not his race, height and facial features. I hope we can make progress Amin (Talk) 19:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Amin: GW goes out of her way to eliminate personal biases and achieve a consensus. What do you think, why does she respond to all of your talk page threads? Also, notice that GW reverts only a few of your edits. wumbolo ^^^ 19:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Including the articles: "Incels Want Gender Terrorism, Not Sex", [3], "Self-hating 'incel' men are the new jihadists", "The internet is enabling a community of men who want to kill women. They need to be stopped", "Unfuckable' Women Don't Go on Killing Sprees" , "We must try to understand how unwanted virginity leads self-hating incels to murder", "Hating Women Was His Disease"", "A Toxic 'Brotherhood': Inside Incels' Dark Online World", etc etc while rejecting edits from the Donnelly Study or neutral or postive op-eds when it doesn't fit a negative tone isn't 'encouraging a NPOV'. Willwill0415 (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) News organizations' article titles aren't written by the article authors. wumbolo ^^^ 19:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't go into the

@Willwill0415: Did you mean to keep going with this thought? [56] GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare (together with Jorm) has been a very dominant contributor to the article since it's inception. I mean, I wrote the damn thing. You're right that a lot of the article was my work, but even a cursory glance through the page history will show other contributors collaborating on the topic with no issue. I'm happy when new edits are made, and I follow WP:BRD if I don't think they're appropriate. Willwill0415 has alleged above that I use BRD to shut down outside editors by reverting bold edits and then those edits languish in discussion. It's normal for poor edits not to gain consensus to be re-added. As for your friend, I'm not sure how he's relevant to a discussion about my Wikipedia editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: "poor edits not gained by consensus". The consensus you are talking about is the group of people involved in re-creating a salted article under a different name against broad wikipedia community consensus. For other people heres aying I am "not getting the point", is the point that individual admins can just override consensus whenever they want, force a non-NPOV article by renaming the previous article to a word that focuses on one particular neoligism used by some forums (instead of incelibate, involuntary single etc) instead of a term invoking the sociological concept? At the end of the day, what happened was the tone of an entire article changed due to a news event. This violates multiple wiki guidelines, it wouldn't violate wiki guidelines if the article hadn't been re-created. But as to my OP, given you wrote most of it, and take nearly every issue to the talk page yourself or comment in it, you have assumed ownership of the page as an admin against wiki guidelines.Willwill0415 (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Boomerang topic ban and a temporary block to stop Willwill's disruption and apparent inability to understand that administrators can write and engage in content disputes outside of their administrative powers. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

It makes no sense for it to call it disruption when I use the talk page as often as required. The claim is a violation of [57], not that Gorilla is engaging in content disputes on the talk page too much Willwill0415 (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Except even a casual perusal of the page history shows no evidence of GW engaging in WP:OWN behaviour. Which is what you seem unable to hear. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Protected - I have Extended confirmed protected Incel for one month. I don't care who's right and who's wrong and what the talk page discussions have been; there has been too much back and forth over the past month. The article is already under Arbcom discretionary sanctions and definitely needs experienced editors to edit it carefully and responsibly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Ritchie333: Err, Ritchie? The article hasn't been edited in 11 days. What are you doing? --GRuban (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hang on, so you're all calling for a topic ban on a problem that does not actually exist - what are you all doing? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

A few days after I submitted my arbCom case, all edits on the incel article just slowed down and magically stopped. It was weird Willwill0415 (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Willwill0415 is an inexperienced editor, is overreacting, and may possibly end up topic banned, but, um ... what does that have to do with protecting the article? Any chance of unprotecting while this goes on? There is no there there, you know? --GRuban (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that protection on my watchlist and was surprised because the article had been quiet. I’m assuming this was a case of “forgot to check the timestamps” which we’ve all done at some point, EC protection clearly is not warranted at this time, but that topic ban very clearly is warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'll unprotect now. I have to confess I am rather confused about what we are talking about on this thread. Unless Willwill0415 is being disruptive on the talk pages (eg: edit warring, incivility), then if he's not actually disrupting articles, what purpose does a topic ban achieve other than getting a pound of flesh for the regulars? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

what purpose does a topic ban achieve other than getting a pound of flesh for the regulars? Prevents the OP from pursuing a dispute that the OP is clearly vested in, given that they called for sanctions against another editor over a dispute that ended over a week ago. I think a one-way IBAN is also a viable (possible better) route. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That sounds about right. (and sorry Ritchie for the protection EC, Twinkle kinda sent me mixed messages there) Clearly this is a user who is unwilling or unable to drop the stick even when nothing is actually happening. Beeblebrox (talk)

Thank you for unprotecting, Ritchie. I also think doesn't have to rise to topic ban levels. Will feels strongly about the subject, but isn't really being disruptive in the article, at least not recently, and, honestly, GorillaWarfare is doing a good job with the article, quite experienced, and tougher than your average anthropoid; if she needs him to be banned, she'll ask for it. --GRuban (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I just struck my support for a topic ban above, per GRuban's point here. Instead, I think we should close this thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Boomerang One Way IBAN I don't know what his problem with GorillaWarfare is (or at least I don't agree with the problems he is claiming), but it needs to end. If he was disruptively editing the page, I would support the topic ban, but that doesn't appear to be occurring right now. -Obsidi (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Given GW doesn't seem to need/want an IBAN I am striking my suggestion for it (I proposed it, as I saw this thread as retaliation and harassment for reasonable conduct). -Obsidi (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly support TBAN from gender issues, broadly construed. Support one way IBAN as well. I'd actually go so far as to also support NOTHERE indef. User is clearly an SPA who is only interested in fringe gender topics such as men's rights and incels, and is now waging a war against an admin who is failing to let them portray what is overwhelmingly considered to be an extremist ideology by reliable sources in a more sympathetic manner. Unreal. We should not be casually tolerating these issues. These kinds of users are why we have discretionary sanctions in place for these topic areas. (Swarm ♠ talk) 20:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Swarm: The admin is not "failing" anything or anywho. GW has always allowed the editor to express their concerns about the article on the talk page, and discussed everything extensively and appropriately. wumbolo ^^^ 21:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Er...what? I didn't say that GW is not allowing the editor to use the talk page, or refusing to engage in discussion. I said GW is failing to let the user portray the subject in a more sympathetic manner, and that's why we're seeing these frivolous complaints. What exactly are you getting at? "Failing to let something happen" is an expression I'm using to convey the sentiment that GW is maintaining the standard of content in an article. It doesn't literally mean GW is "failing".[58] (Swarm ♠ talk) 21:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support gender-issues TBAN and one-way IBAN with GW The OP is skating close to a NOTHERE indef. Miniapolis 22:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• TBAN/IBAN/SBAN and indef OP - WP:NOTHERE. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN/IBAN/Indef Whatever is going to pass. Editor is here with a warped addenda that personally I don't care to entertain a minute further. Not here to build an encyclopedia. --Tarage (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from the incel article, if not all gender-related articles. Oppose IBAN (one-way or otherwise) with me. Long time no see, Willwill0415. You're right that I revert a lot at that page—ever since I wrote it, there has been a fairly significant influx of editors (including yourself) who are trying twist the article towards describing all people who aren't having sex but wish to. Past versions of the article took this approach, which is largely why the list of past deletions at AfD at the top of Talk:Incel is so long. For people new to this conflict, you can see an old version of the page that I moved to a user subpage by request at User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy (for some reason the currently-blocked user Thylacoop5 continued to edit it after Valoem requested it be userified, but you can go back in the history and see its previous form if you like). The incel subculture is notable, particularly since it began receiving considerable media attention after the 2014 Isla Vista killings and especially after the Toronto van attack in April 2018. The concept that ordinary men who are not members of this subculture and just aren't getting laid are "involuntarily celibate" however is a fringe view that, in my opinion, is an attempt by members of the subculture to try to normalize their otherwise radical viewpoints. It's also a concept that is adequately described by other Wikipedia articles, such as sexual frustration and sexual abstinence.

A look through Talk:Incel and its archives will show that I have been firm but more than accommodating to Willwill0415 and others pushing this narrative. It will also show that Willwill0415 has repeatedly tried to relitigate the same points, and repeatedly tried to introduce unacceptable sources and original research. On September 7 I warned Willwill0415 that I would request he be topic banned because of his disruption, and that seems to be what set off the ArbCom case and then this ANI request. Which is weirdly timed, I might add—the incel article has been very quiet and it's been almost 3 weeks since he and I last interacted.

I clearly support Willwill0415 being topic banned at least from the incel article, although if he's similarly disruptive elsewhere I'd support a broader ban. It does appear he's somewhat of an SPA based on the articles he's been editing, aside from the "Modern Monetary economics" ones (is there non-monetary economics?) I don't agree with those suggesting one-way interaction bans with me, however—partly because I don't like the idea of one-way IBANs in general, but also because although he has been disruptive while editing the article, he has largely been civil and cooperative in discussions with me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Just coming back to say that I had previously struck my opinion on how the deal with the OP based on an argument I found compelling: Namely, that GW is quite familiar with the situation and competent as both an editor of that article as well as an admin, and as such, GW is in the best position to opine on how to deal with the OP. Since GW has now opined that a topic ban is an appropriate measure, I will defer to her judgement and support the same motion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN and Topic ban This is ridiculous. Willwill0415 has failed to provide evidence that GorillaWarfare has actually assumed ownership. This is appears to more an attempt by Willwill0415 to try and get their way in a content dispute, since the diffs provided demonstrates that GorillaWarfare has actually attempted to discuss things with the other editors in a civilized manner. Dimiss as vexatious complaint and sanction Willwill0415. —Mythdon 03:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• indef Willwill0415 for SPA/NOTHERE rank advocacy. Basta. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• 3 month block and topic ban seem to be a good start JC7V-constructive zone 23:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block and a topic ban from gender and sexual based articles, should he successfully apppeal the indefinite block at a later date. Clearly this user is a WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE amongst other issues. I oppose an IBAN with GorillaWarfare because GorillaWarfare opposes such.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Note: I have topic-banned User:Willwill0415 from "articles and discussions related to gender-related movements, controversies and disputes" (see details and rationale). I have done so as an individual, uninvolved admin under the discretionary sanctions approved by arbcom's GamerGate case decision. If, as some have proposed, the community believes that a stronger sanction is desirable the above discussion can continue till consensus is reached; my suggestion though would be to give the topic-ban a try. Abecedare (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violating WP:Civility, WP:NPA, beginning WP:HA

Resolved

 – Skyhghway indef blocked, and if their first appeal is any indication they won’t be unblocked anytime soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear Administrators,

I have no other choice than to report Skyhighway for the issues commited in the subject, although it was not my intention, but I think it is by far what is happening, although despite I tried to be the less sensitive possible I think.

Prelude:

This user a couple of days ago introduced more bold edits in several articles (Székelys, Central Europe, Romani people in Hungary, Székely Land national football team, History of the Székely people, Szekler National Council, Budapest etc.), including massive page moves, he/she seemed to be a newbie so I think everybody cared this user with more attention and understanding, as I saw he already got a warning from another user for possible vandalistic type edits on an other article, after another warning from an administrator regarding the page moves.

Nevertheless, also other editors noticed his/her edits that had some problems with the format (i.e. Romani people in Hungary) or practise, especially his/her argumentation is some cases have shown a total lack of experience in WP or were totally amazing regarding his way of argumentation (i.e. Central Europe, Budapest). Also in the talk page of the Romani people of Hungary, similar way accused another editor, etc.

After when in the articles the second time I was reverted by him/her, I took the subjects to the talk pages, as I promised and as it is done per wikietiquette, however despite by some article he/she continued to disregard these attemps and still continued some reverts, but I was considering since 3rr was not reached and because in some part he/she have shown some understanding I was considering just sending him an edit warring notification will be enough, hoping he/she will read at least a few WP guidelines, but I did not made any report, assuming good faith.

By the time, he started in my personal talk page a bunch of uncivil, sometimes obscene material and personal attacks towards my person in a prejudicative way, to say nothing of a quasi borderline(?) hate speech and generalization against Hungary/Hungarians. Having experience on this, I totally reacted and cared about him/her with patience, cold head, better reflecting on objectivity, wise evaluation, and last but not least civility. However I warned him more that he/she should ignore such style, but still did not do anything, hoping he/she will a little bit notice himself/herself. Also an talk page patroller warned him yesterday about his uncivil style.

I have to tell here, he/she blanked all of the warnings of other editors, including the one done by an administrator.

As I logged in today (almost recently writing this report) I see again an abusive message in my talk page in the same style as mentioned above, and I see as well the same page patroller is warned him/her for personal attacks in his/her talk page, but I checked he/she blanked it out again with the comment "I am very civil.....I judge objectively".....

No comment...I have at least almost seven years continous experience in WP, and I don't want wish anything bad to any editor and I practise really good faith, but for even less incivility relevant sanctions are made...I am totally peaceful, I don't understand this editor...of course, despite of some still opened issues his/her reverting policy is ongoing...(KIENGIR (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC))

What kind of administration action are you seeking? We can always hit him with a WP:TROUT! On a more serious note, are you looking for an IBAN? Blanking of warning is totally fine (blanking is actually considered acknowledgment that they read them), and blanking discussion on your own talk page is generally fine. There does seem to be some rather uncivil comments, including some WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, but it doesn't seem all that bad imo (I've seen a lot worse on WP quite often). It does seem that he doesn't even understand the rules concerning WP:UNCIVIL/WP:NPA/WP:BATTLEGROUND. -Obsidi (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, did you read entirely his/her interactions in the my talk page, or the talk page in other articles I mentioned, especially the talk of Budapest? Sorry, I am not familiar with WP:TROUT and I don't know what is "IBAN" and according to my experience deliberately blanking fresh and ongoing issues are totally not OK. I heavily disagree with you just judging them only "rather uncivil comments", or "it doesn't seem all that bad imo", sorry I have different experience in WP, for i.e. for much-much less an immediate 48 hours block I already exprienced without any discussion. Anayway, let this to be decided by an Adminsitrator who has more experience with such.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC))

(Non-administrator comment) An IBAN is an interaction ban, see here. —Mythdon 22:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Also, it might be helpful if you actually provide diffs of Skyhighway's edits to the articles and diffs of their comments towards you and links to the specific discussions that both you and Skyhighway were involved to give everyone more context on what is going on. —Mythdon 22:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't see this anyway a solution, since the IBAN punishes the equal way the involved editors, although I did not harm any of the rules and I don't see why I should be limitated by anything since this is not the classic conflic/war of two editors since I was peronally chased and not vica versa. Thus, answering to Obsidi, obiously a solution similar I referred above, but of course only to punish the guilty part, not the innocent one, in case.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC))

Mythdon, I think I clearly told where are the most abusive parts, head to the talk of Budapest, but before do not miss the last two sections of my personal talk page. It's enough...(KIENGIR (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC))

An IBAN can also be one way (in which it would only effect him). -Obsidi (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There does appear to be some CIVIL and NPA issues, particularly in this discussion where Skyhighway seems to be commenting on the contributor KIENGIR by making accusation after accusation toward KIENGIR and calling them "indoctrinated" instead of commenting on article content. Without commenting on the merits of article content, I don't see anything KIENGIR has done wrong but try to discuss things with Skyhighway in a civilized manner. Although I can't do much since I'm not an admin, it serves to at least offer some perspective (seeing as I initially only commented on help KIENGIR to what an IBAN was and to provide diffs).

Also linking to the other two discussions ([59] [60] to make things easier for anyone reading this thread. —Mythdon 23:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) An IBAN is likely the best way to go with this. However, I support a site ban if neccesary. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Obsidi, Mythdon, Kirbanzo, thank you all for your feedback...yes I was reading to fast what is IBAN (sorry, I don't feel so well, instead of happy editing I have to care about this issue), and I noticed now that one way ban is also possible.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC))

Given your above comments concerning getting blocked in the past, let me explain a little more how this all works. Administrators don't have the authority to ban anyone (unless WP:Discretionary sanction has been authorized by the community or ArbCom over the topic area due to extensive disruption). They can block people that are causing imminent or continuing damage and disruption (this is not a punishment, it is a preventive tool and usually undone once the person recognizes their error and will not continue). The community can ban people from interacting, or editing specific pages/topics or the entire site (bans are long term when someone appears unable to act constructively). The community includes everyone, admins and non-admins, and once a consensus is reached by the community on this page then the admins will implement that consensus. Just trying to help you understand how it works. So far from what I have seen a block (until they recognize the problems in their behavior of WP:UNCIVIL and WP:NPA) or potentially a one-way IBAN (as most of his problems seems to be centered around you), seems appropriate. -Obsidi (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Obsidi, I did not know/realize that also here the community consensus works, I thought the community have the possibility to express some opinions, recommendations, but the Administrators have the right on a final judgement with or without it. Thank you for the clarification!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC))

All these just prove that User:Kienger can't find arguments when sourced text was provided. For example I asked him about GDP of Budapest why is 141 Billion in the text when total Hungary has less.. No reply from him. Skyhighway (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you want to provide a citation for the claim that Hungary has a smaller GDP than 141 billion (your claim is 120 billion)? because our article states over 306 billion and it is cited to the IMF. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nominal GDP how much is it? How much is nominal GDP of Budapest? I rightly indicated that Hungarian users play with numbers and inflate them. Can't be bigger the GDP of Budapest than entire country, logic isn't it? Instead, if we're here let's discuss also the civility of the user:Kienger. Skyhighway (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

How much is the nominal GDP of Budapest? - Why nominal? The Budapest article says GDP PPP is 141 billion, not nominal GDP. Probably should have made that clear when I wrote the above comment. I think I've worked out that your 120 billion number is based on, it's what google spits back out if you type in "Hungary GDP" in the search bar: [61]. That said, I have my reservations about these numbers, and I'll leave a comment on Talk:Budapest about them later. [L]et's discuss also the civility of the user:Kiengir - Go ahead, that's what this board is for. Make your argument, and present your evidence. While I'm here, Kiengir and Skyhighway, it'd be helpful if you provided diffs for your points. It's easier to review single edits, than entire page histories to find what you're talking about. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

To Skyhighway: As the community may see, accusations again and again, targeting anything and anone that is Hungarian. On the other hand, I reacted to this user who still does not want to understand how WP works and on the contrary, for every question I could give proper arguments that may be read i.e. all the pages listed here. Thus, you won't be able to bait me ([62]) with another provocations in my personal page into a useless discussion and for something that I already reacted - in the proper place - and you have the obligation to demonstrate something that you cannot, as it is similar in other pages, where you push you own POV, without any support, recently at Róbert Ilyés and Székely Land national football team, but almost every Hungary related article where other editors did already objected your activity (and not I am ignoring sourced text the contrary, everyone may check it). Because you met me first you spotted me, but you already started another argues with other Hungarian editors, who as well noticed your stlye and improper way of editing many of the cases. Regarding my civility, I am not afraid of anything, everyone can check that I was totally civil and more nice with you that you deserved - especially another user warned you about civility and NPA, despite you continued and only after I made my step since not just I was feeling you went by far - despite your awful and prejudicative accusations, provocations, stigmatization of Hungary and Hungarians, I know this became for you inconvenient and it seems you again wish to throw stones at me, instead of thinking a little bit about what you are really doing.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC))

Mr rnddude, Mythdon already provided some relevant diffs about the main subject, however: ([63]) and my personal talk page ([64]), ([65]) you may see the evidence. Anything else in the other pages mentioned may be tracked easily, since most of them do not have long talk pages.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC))

Just recently noticed, this ([66]) is again a cheap way of demafation and tries to deminuate the weight if his/her behavior with a flawed causation...I reacted, as well here ([67]) everyone may what style and standard his/her discussions are ongoing, as he/she continued reverts despite the warnings also in other pages.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC))

All I see is how you do harass me and you continue to talk a lot, because you lack arguments on the article. I brought solid references and despite this all you do is to lame here. Skyhighway (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me are you kidding? I never harassed you and you keep continuing it all of the pages, my arguments may be read everywhere. You did not brought solid references, as eveyone may check in the corresponding pages. I have to inform the community, that Skyhighway again posted on my personal talk page ([68]) again a message with a demafation, lying, accusations with personal attacks.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC))

Yes, Skyhighway is a troll. Anybody who has read his messages will conclude that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

lol, if you can't get sources then the others are trolls, you start ANI, you let warnings, you try everything but to get the real numbers and sources. And all the time the other is guilty. And why you did this https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Székely_people&curid=11394933&diff=861712706&oldid=861709292 ? For all admins please read carefully the way they act. They remove sourced, valid text. Skyhighway (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, when I removed "sourced, valid text"? At the Romani people in Hungary I corrected more times the bad format as you introduced the edit but you reverted it more times and after I took the question to the talk page accordingly to WP guidelines, I had no intention to remove it, and also in the talk page you did not seem to understand that my problem was with the bad format. Now you try to identify yourself as a victim, I demonstrated more times why I had to start the ANI and regarding the warnings you also generalize other good faith editors who warned you - including an Administrator -. Don't worry, the Administrators hopefully will check everything, but it seems by similar accusations you risk of being hoist by your own petard as well, if already what happened was not enough by now.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC))

I came here because of some other pages (namely Moldova) where SkyHighway has been rewriting with pro-Romanian political slant. As Wikipedia is supposed to be free of political bias, and he has been repeatedly warned over there, I'd just like to see some resolution here. IBAN at least. Thanks! Skirts89 (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Wait a second, you come here and throw stones but you do this https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Moldova&type=revision&diff=861726399&oldid=861618082 What is the vandalism there? And that word was not placed by me in the first place. Check history of edits. Skyhighway (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It would help if the involved parties actually provided diffs of Skyhighway's edits to the articles (to provide specific evidence that Skyhighway "isn't here to build an encyclopedia"), seeing as how the content dispute itself has made its way to this thread. So far, there's only been links to discussions and stuff. But looking at the edit history of the article linked by Skirts89 this appears to be a blantant whitewash of the Moldova page. —Mythdon 15:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, my edits on the contrary, are not POV but NPOV, see the articles of Szeklers Skyhighway (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I invite other editors to consider Discrimination of Romani people in Hungary as an example of these allegedly-neutral edits. —C.Fred (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Especially, Skyhighway is misleading the community, majority of his edits & page moves were contested considering those articles that have connection to Székelys....regarding Discrimination of Romani people in Hungary, it may be considered a joke since he/she is using a source from 2002 (!), and the whole text is a pure propaganda it shows he/she does not have any superficial knowledge of he subject and it's situation recently, also regarding the cases and issue in European and Hungarian inner politics regarding the Fidesz government i.e. in the past 8 years....pfff(KIENGIR (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC))

• So we have:

  Copyright violations;

  Edit-warring;

  Mass POV pushing (the last example as of today, [69]);

  I do not see any useful contribution.

• I am inclined to block indef per WP:NOTTHERE, unless there are substantial objections. The user will then have a chance to post an unblock request and explain how they are going to correct their editing style if they want to continue edit here.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mythdon:, thank you for your message. Here are two examples which demonstrate Skyhighway's quite surrealistic style of communication. (1) He added a sentence to the article Anonymus (chronicler), without providing a proper reference to a single reliable source ([70]). I wrote a message on the article's Talk page, suggesting that the article could be expanded, but also emphasizing that "we cannot edit an article based on our thoughts" ([71]). His answer was the following "Is this your argument? Do you have others because your arguments are very week." ([72]). Sincerely, I was quite surprised, because WP:NOR is a basic principle of our community. Therefore, I draw his attention to this principle, and also to WP:NPOV ([73]). His answer was the following: "Exactly WP:NOR and WP:NPOV contradicts your edits. Very good that you bring them here in discussion." ([74]). Later, he copied long Latin and French texts on the article's Talk page (I guess they are quotes from Anonymous' work), with the following edit summary: "so, with own words Hungarians admit they were 2nd in Transylvania" ([75]). Let's forget that "the Hungarians" could not "admit" that they "were 2nd in Transylania" (because they only settled in Transylvania after the Scythians, Romans, Carps, Gepids, Goths, Huns, Slavs, Bulgarians, etc, so they cannot be "the 2nd in Transylvania"), but there had been no debate about the succession of peoples in the province during our conversation. (2) He added information about an alleged Autonomous Hungarian Roma Province to the article Romani people in Hungary ([76]). He also wrote a message on the article's Talk page: "Autonomous Hungarian Roma Province it's an idea that appeared recently. This is based on over 10% Romani people in Hungary. Let us check the double standard of Hungarian users on this." ([77]). I have never heard of the idea of an "Autonomous Hungarian Roma Province" and he referred to one single Roma politician's initiative, so I asked him to add further information on the issue ([78]). He stated that the Roma represent 10% of the population of Hungary (which is a good estimation, because about 8-9% of the population here in Hungary is Roma) and suggested that the Roma population should be given territorial autonomy and I should support this idea ([79]). I answered that we are not here to propagate territorial autonomy for a population which do not want to achieve it ([80]). He answered that I "propagate autonomy for a population" and I know to what population I am propagating autonomy ([81]). My answer can be read here: [82]. I do not want to be rude, but he is either unable or unwilling to participate in rational discussions. Do we need to read his phantasamagorical messages? Borsoka (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

So, let's recap. You had a monopol of some articles and the others can't edit? Only if your POV is pushed? Is this the democracy of Wikipedia? And if others come and add content than you start with accusations. First of all your edits are full of POV, you just push a nationalistic Hungarian POV, an extreme one. Jobbik like, I wonder why you're not blocked for your reverts. All you do is to push a Hungarian xenophobic POV. All people can see your reverts and how you don't accept other points of view. Skyhighway (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• This prompted me to block the user indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Székely Land national football team

But. Look the situation here. It is this article: [[83]] Székely Land national football team This one is the heart of all disagreements with the other editors. Because this is not a national team of football people based on ethnicity as the name implies, so, it's not like the French national football team or Italian national football team. This one was initiated in 2014 in Budapest by a guy. Now, he can name his team as he wants, but the article should state clear what it is and it is not. Even if the name is misleading, the article should inform correctly the reader not to understand that there is a nation, a land, a country and has a national team of football. User Borsoka and User:Fakirbakir and User Kiengir are Hungarians and they support very much the misleading article, because they think they help Hungary in doing this. Skyhighway (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

First of all, if mention someone in this board, you have to notify it, you did not notify neither Borsoka or Fakirbakir. However it is very interesting you not just decide other users nationality or whatsoever, you again misleading the community and clearly accuse and defamate more users about something that is not true. Especially, in this article Borsoka and Fakirbakir did not even participate, moreover you are the only one whi is supporting a misleading article, as in the talk page it everybody can check...did you consider seriously in such a cheap way you may mislead the community? And you ask the administrators to check your claims? With lying?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC))

You are not telling the truth, you want to hide that it's a private company not national one. Since it's Budapest born company has nothing to do with Romanian national team and that's why is misleading. You can't stand the truth. Skyhighway (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

For your misfortune, the talk page of he article contains every information on this subject, and it is contradicting you. Still don't get that an association how could be a "private company", but I am really tired of your inventions and accusations. Will not comment more on the subject here.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC))

Budapest over and over inflated numbers of GDP

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Budapest#About_these_numbers Please see other people what they say about inflated numbers and push POV of the editors that started accusation on me. Skyhighway (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Aha, so just because another editor did the work instead of you, it would redempt you from the incivilities, personal attacks, etc. that you commited? This riport is about this, nothing else, regardless how much you try to deteriorate the attention about it.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC))

Persistent IP user nagging to remove picture(s) of Mohammed

Hi, I previously sought advice on IRC what to do about a certain IP user. He is currently demanding removal/renaming of a picture of Mohammed (File:maome.jpg) at Helpdesk/Humanities. He used the following IPs there: 1, 2.

On the file's talk page User:AstroLynx advised me that it might be the guy who clogged several talk pages on Islamic Calendar, have a look at the RFC result on this archived page: 3. And sorry that I tried to reason with him for quite some time. 2.247.240.207 (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The same IP editor (Special:Contributions/78.145.21.69) is edit-warring at Conquest of Mecca over the date of the event.

1. 17:48-18:51, 27 September 2018 altered date
2. 11:32, 28 September 2018 altered date
3. 15:40, 28 September 2018 altered date and added source that did not support his/her edit
4. 13:27, 29 September 2018 altered date and added two sources that do not support his/her edit

He/she was warned about edit-warring on 17:28, 28 September 2018

There is an attempt to discuss the issue at Talk:Conquest of Mecca#Date conflicts.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Marjdabi

In the Egypt article, Marjdabi (talk · contribs · count) introduces controversial material on August 27 that was challenged by two editors, including myself (another more expanded version of the disputed material was also challenged earlier that same day by Moxy). All of those were met by relentless reverting by Marjdabi which eventually led to full page protection. I'll try to summarize the dispute:

• Marjdabi believes that certain recent events should be included because other articles have those (the Turkey article in particular).
• Moxy explains in both edit summaries and on the relevant talk page discussion that those fail WP:UNDUE, that "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument, and that they should adhere to BRD instead of reverting.
• Marjdabi introduces a corrected, shorter version of the material, which includes loaded terms like "military dictatorship" that are simply not found in the given source. (removing this should be non-negotiable)
• I revert, citing both that issue (source misrepresentation; OR) and WP:RECENT.
• Marjdabi reverts.
• Roger 8 Roger reverts.
• Marjdabi reverts. (I count 5 reverts by them that day)
• I start discussing this on talk (please read the discussion). Most of my arguments, which I believe were policy-based, are met with nothing but statements along the lines of "I believe XYZ should be included because other stuff exists".
• Noticing the deadlock, I initiated an RfC.
• Some editors start pointing out that the RfC was premature and that the issue should have been taken to AN3 instead (again, please read the discussion).
• After some time I withdrew (but did not close) the RfC, and restored the stable version (plus a small addition that was agreed upon through discussion with another editor in that very same RfC).
• Marjdabi reverts, despite being largely absent from the RfC.[84]
• I summoned Marjdabi on talk, but got the same "other stuff" arguments.[85]
• Because WP:NOR is supposed to be non-negotiable, I finally closed the RfC and reinstated the pre-August 27 revision.
• Marjdabi reverts without leaving an edit summary.[86]
• I revert.[87]
• Marjdabi reverts.[88]
• I give Marjdabi one last chance to discuss on talk.
• This is how they responded.

Shortly after our first interaction, Marjdabi was blocked for 1 week (August 28–September 4) for similar behavior on several different articles, and barely evaded a block earlier this week for (again) similar behavior on State-sponsored terrorism.[89] It is clear from such behavior that this user has no wish to adhere to BRD and is willing to make as many reverts as it takes to have it their way. I rarely ever come here, but this user has pretty much exhausted my patience.

Which is why I suggest imposing a lengthy "no revert rule" on Marjdabi, with reverting vandalism being the only exception. I'll let others decide whether this should be accompanied by a block for disruptive editing or not. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I keep seeing this name and it's becoming pretty apparent they have a battleground mentality and don't want to listen. Canterbury Tail talk 12:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:PAID ; WP:COI

Good morning. I just would like to highlight that I suspect (talk) to violate WP:PAID ; WP:COI to be paid by a competitor company of IONIS Education Group to delete anything concerning this education group and try to influence other users. For me it is quite clear looking of the black log of the user and his history. But I am not sure so I prefer to rely on your opinion. Kind Regards, 2A01:CB00:B51:3E00:B5A6:6D4B:CEFE:28CE (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC

• Previous ANIs [90] [91]. Time for WP:BOOMERANG? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• This has been examined multiple times and found that anonymous IPs are attempting to add promo material on this topic and then when EulerObama reverts their content and restores a NPOV they bring him to ANI. A boomerang might be appropriate, but this is like the 3rd or 4th IP to do this and I'm not sure any kind of block/ban would stop this. I think it may instead be necessary to semi-protect more of these IONIS pages so the IPs cannot keep doing this. IONIS Education Group has already been semi-protected by the admin TomStar81, based on a "long term pattern of WP:COI and WP:PAID based editing." I'm thinking IONIS School of Technology and Management, ESME-Sudria, as well as Institut supérieur européen de gestion group may need this. They are also creating various promo articles that EulerObama is AfDing, but I don't see a good way to stop these IPs from doing that. -Obsidi (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Junior5a

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Junior5a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user won't stop reverting me over an icon used in a template, of all things. (How POINTless.) Also, Engrish. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 18:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

This is sitting at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You made 15 reverts each at {{Deprecated template}} without any attempts to start a discussion at the talk page, and I would like to see good arguments why both of you should not be immediately blocked per WP:3RR.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: The Nuvola iconset is, IHMO, fugly. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 18:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not see this reason listed as an exemption at WP:3RR--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Not all templates need icons. Why can't Tdeprecated be just some text in a box, like its other TFD-process-related sister templates? Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 18:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: If Junior5a had stopped reverting, or if he/she had been blocked for 3RR and CIR after his/her 3rd revert, I wouldn't have kept reverting. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 19:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I will leave this to another administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I gave both of these editors 48 hour blocks for edit warring. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could someone revoke this IP's talk page access?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey, could someone go ahead and revoke 174.16.127.162 (talk · contribs)'s talk page access, it seems he is misusing it and was removing his block notice before I warned him. I don't want this turning nasty or anything. It also appears the IP is a duck of WP:LTA/DENVER having done a geolocate already so this guy smells of socks. --IanDBeacon (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done - TNT ^💖 20:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attempt to have self admitted sock of BANNED user at WP:AIV failed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Xfetcher was created only a few hours ago. His first post was a rather cryptic "I'm sorry" on my talk page.[92] His second post, 3 hours later, was to create his user page complete with an admission that he is a sockpuppet of BANNED user Simulation12 in the form of a template. He also deleted a significant amount of content from Talk:List of Henry Danger episodes.[93] This was reverted by Amaury who reported it to WP:AIV. That was rejected by Spencer who posted the old "This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to WP:SPI". The Simulation12 ban discussion mentions some quite obvious vandalistic behaviour so I tend to think a self-admitted sock of Simulation12 falls into the "obvious vandal" but hey, that's not Spencer's concern is it? I don't have the time or inclination to write up an SPI report that probably won't be actioned for several days at least, in which time the sock will have plenty of time to vandalise. However, I thought I'd at least report it here so everyone is aware. I'm not going to notify Xfetcher because that will just give him the opportunity to create socks. If anyone wants to do anything about it, go for it. If not, I don't care. It really shouldn't be so hard to get an obvious banned user evading his block blocked. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Unclear exactly what's going on there, but clearly up to no good. Blocked. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SanAnMan

User:SanAnMan (talk) reverted an edit I made to an article for an episode of South Park, which appears to be one of this user's areas of interest. I engaged with the user on their talk page attempting to discuss precisely how, in their view, my edit violated policy. When I said they weren't being specific, the user said it was "blatantly apparent [I] just want to argue" and that I should stop leaving messages. When I said that that wasn't constructive and suggested dispute resolution, they simply decided to remove any messages I leave. Could someone step in and say this behaviour is not acceptable? ----92.21.174.27 (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like he would be open to dispute resolution, but there are options that don't require his participation, such as starting a request for comments. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not ideal - the RFC page says "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others". If someone refuses to make such a reasonable attempt, is this not a conduct issue? And if not, I consider my edit just a minor improvement rather than a full-scale rewriting of the page; an RFC seems overblown. Would you still recommend RFC in this context? I'm willing to go ahead with it there really aren't any other options. --92.21.174.27 (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You could post to the article's talk page, wait a few days for a response, and see what happens. If nothing comes of it, I think a request for comments would be justified. If there were problems after that, it would more clearly be a conduct issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'll do that. ----92.21.174.27 (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Hello, I'm going to attempt to clear up what I believe is a very foggy and incomplete situation here. Let's start from the beginning. The article Stunning and Brave was first edited by User:79.75.139.38 on April 6, 2018. This IP-only user had made no previous edits prior to this, and I deemed the addition of the content to the article to be in violation of policy at WP:TVPLOT and WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE. As a side note, it is unfortunately rather common to have to revert edits such as this by one-time IP-only editors for this same reason on many television episode pages, and these policies are in fact specifically mentioned in the talk page of the article. This edit was then reverted by User:85.211.212.153 in August 2018 (4 months later), so at the time, I had no way of knowing if this was the same editor or not. That reversion was again reverted by me, this time in the edit summary explaining that the edit was in violation of TVPLOT. It was at this time that User:85.211.212.153 left the first message on my talk page asking for further explanation. In an effort of good faith, I replied with the key lines out of the policy exactly what he had violated. His response was to state that I should "specify what (I) objected to in (his) edit". Again in good faith, I eventually replied with more specific details, again using the text from the policy as guideline. His response was that he wanted to break down point-by-point his additions. I am just another editor, and I did not feel it was my responsibility to try to teach and/or explain in specific detail WP policy that is clearly written, and yes, I did feel that at this point he was kind of beating a dead horse, so yes, I replied and asked him specifically to not message me directly again, and since I felt there was no point in continuing the conversation I removed the thread.

Now here's where it gets more interesting and convoluted. He eventually contacts me again but this time as User:92.21.174.27, the third different IP from what I now concluded was the same person (79.75.x.x, 85.211.x.x, and now 92.21.x.x). The IP-hopping from three different networks raised my radar here, and that's when I began digging a little deeper. The very first edit made by 92.21.174.27 was to modify the user talk page of User:94.197.120.175. That particular IP address (94.197.x.x) has been range-banned and blocked for 6 months since September 25, 2018. That same date, coincidentally enough, is the date that User:94.197.120.175 made that first edit. I also found it rather unusual that a relatively-new IP editor would already know how to do such things as API, piping links, and other such details which are generally not as easily gleamed by most relatively-new IP-only editors (my opinion here).

In summary, I firmly believe that not only did I act in good faith towards User:85.211.212.153 by 1) directing him to the WP policy in question in the reversion itself, 2) quoting him directly the section of the WP policy that the edit was in violation thereof, and 3) further explaining the details of his edit in contrast to the policy, but I have high reason to suspect that User:92.21.174.27 may in fact be IP-hopping to avoid the range ban mentioned earlier. I think we may possibly be being played here. I thank you for your time and attention. - SanAnMan (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's always going to be an opposing point of view in any conflict. First, I'd point out that IP addresses frequently change outside of a person's control. It doesn't necessarily mean anything that someone uses many different IP addresses. I understand that it may seem suspicious to see IP editors who are familiar with wikicode and obscure processes, but some of them have been editing anonymously for years without being disruptive. These IP editors may indeed become caught in range blocks, but it doesn't necessarily mean the range block was meant for them. If someone is being polite and trying to engage with you, it's unlikely they're an LTA vandal who makes threats. (This seem to be what the range block was for.)

Second, I know it's frustrating to deal with people who may want to expand plot summaries beyond the recommended limits (or in ways the guidelines discourage), but there's occasionally going to be some degree of discussion necessary. Sometimes it helps if you address their questions and concerns. Someone may be trying to see things from your point of view but need help understanding where you're coming from. Once you find a better way to explain yourself, you might quickly find consensus in your favor. If you're finding it frustrating or tedious, sometimes WP:DRN helps. Or go to an RFC and let consensus rule. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Another editor using a similar username

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I believe the above account was created solely to mimic my own username, AlexTheWhovian; checking their contribution history shows that their only major edit was to revert me at {{The Big Bang Theory}}. Is there a policy against this? -- Alex^TW 02:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - there's a separate noticeboard for username violations. —Mythdon 02:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mythdon: Thank you; I wasn't aware of that noticeboard. I've moved this post to there. -- Alex^TW 02:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Mythdon The username by itself is not a violation. There are lots of editors with similar usernames around here. The problem is the stalking of AlexTheWhovian's edits on that template and the fact that they cite BRD with their second edit. Whether their is any relation to this IP 2602:306:381E:6860:4415:2AF3:8F25:F6EB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is hard to say but an admin could take a look at things to determine what is going on. If action is taken at UAA then great and this can be closed again. MarnetteD|Talk 03:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

+1 - It would be no different to someone having the name "Davey2011" so I wouldn't class this as a violation, That being said I do agree with MarnetteD in that the stalking does warrant a check and block if deemed necessary, I would also agree in that they have tried to maybe impersonate you so again that should be looked in to, I would suggest closing this and going to UFAA. –Davey2010^Talk 03:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010 AtW has already filed at UFAA. I had reopened this since the name by itself may not acted upon at that notice board. Apologies if I did not make that clear with my first post. MarnetteD|Talk 03:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah right sorry I had no idea, In that case maybe ANI was a good idea, Thanks for letting me know anyway :) –Davey2010^Talk 12:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Much of the concern was about the username which was why I directed them to that board (and I'm sure its mentioned somewhere in the username policy about usernames that are intended to harass). It doesn't really matter where action is taken and I only closed this thread because the complaint got taken to the other board. I only meant to suggest that Alex could take their complaint to UAA, not that it couldn't still be discussed here. I didn't mean to sound bureaucratic by pointing anyone to a different board, if that clarifies anything. —Mythdon 03:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

No worries Mythdon. I didn't think you were being bureaucratic. Fortunately, AtD hasn't edited again so we will see what admins determine no matter which notice board they respond to. Cheers to all. MarnetteD|Talk 03:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This may be a sock/troll, but even if it is a good-faith new user, they should be encouraged to change their username. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• I've softblocked the name; as power suggested, they should change it. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
• The user should be encouraged to change their username, but an ANI with suggestions of "a check and block" is completely overboard. If I assume good faith, it seems like someone edited anonymously, saw their changes were undone so created an account (humorously inspired by another's username, but presumably without knowledge of our detailed and confusing username policies). Not a case where anything other than a username change is necessary. This thread should be closed by someone uninvolved. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Citing BRD with their second edit is "not" an editor without knowledge of our policies. The fact that the editor has created AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk · contribs) to continue their edit warring after AtD was blocked shows that they do not care about those policies. MarnetteD|Talk 12:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I changed my username to be less similar to that of Whovian since he is being pathetic until the issue is sorted. What edit warring? I reverted Whovian's edits on the template twice, not breaching 3RR. Knowing that one policy is not "knowledge of our detailed and confusing username policies". AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding one word to your username is "not" less similar to your first creation. BTW you now need to read up and learn aabout WP:NPA policy. MarnetteD|Talk 12:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This thread definitely shouldn't be closed, now that the editor is SOCKing. -- Alex^TW 12:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding a word to my username does make it more unique. I am only using this account to communicate try unblock my main account, not edit any article. AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you create another account to get around your ban? Yes? That's SOCK. Article and talk page is irrelevant, it doesn't matter where you edit. It's SOCK. -- Alex^TW 13:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Note that this user was explicitly permitted to create a new account after AlexTheDoctor was blocked. Doing so is not considered a violation of WP:SOCK. However, just about everything else about this user is setting off warnings. --Yamla (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I should have indeed been more precise in my explanation of the block. I am pretty sure the user know this, but I will leave a comment for them now.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Famartin

I am having a dispute with user:Famartin. I disagree with the notion that red leaves on Norway maples are atypical, and so I provided a source which tells that the amount of red leaves is related to the health of the plant, so damaged trees and dying trees have some amounts of red leaves. In the tree's native range it is quite typical to see damaged branches, and old or dying trees. However, not even this was acceptable to Famartin who simply reverts me. Could other editors please have a look at this? I am not interested in engaging in an edit war with this editor.--Berig (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The only source provided by Berig indicated that the amount of red in the foliage was related to tree health. It indicated nothing about the propensity towards red in fall foliage. All other sources indicate typical fall foliage is yellow. Famartin (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

What dispute resolution did you try before posting here? --92.21.174.27 (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Berig, this is a routine content dispute, and this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. We deal with behavioral issues here. The first step is for you to discuss the matter with Famartin and other interested editors at Talk:Acer platanoides. There has been no discussion at all there for a long time. If you cannot come to a consensus agreement on the article talk page, then there are several forms of dispute resolution available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. Please can someone rangeblock the 39.57 IP range listed here. This is a long-term abuse case that keeps cropping up. They are currently editing at 39.57.107.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I reported this one about 2 hours ago at AIV, but there's a bit of a backlog. I'd be grateful if the latest IP is blocked and a rangeblock put in place. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

•  Done 39.57.0.0/17 rangeblocked for a month. There are a very few constructive edits back a month or so, but everything since then has been this editor. Black Kite (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks BK, much appreciated. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated addition of unsourced content by Cubisme

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. Cubisme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding unsourced content, mostly the line "He is Muslim" to footballer articles. Two examples: Boubacar Barry, Seydou Doumbia. They have have been sufficiently warned. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring & lack of respect for other editors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. I am here to report AlHazen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been doing disruptive editing on Islam for quite sometime now. He/she has also shown lack of respect for the views of fellow editors despite exhaustive discussions here & here. I also invite Mingling2, Nillurcheier & Eperoton to share their views on this matter.

My request is to block the user from making edits on Islam for sometime. Regards Alina Haidar (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Elon Musk

Due to ongoing requests, this notice has to be reinstated and I ask that the template not be restored to blacklist so that if necessary in the future the notice can be restored by editors other than administrators. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: edit notices in general are on the blacklist by pattern, not individually. Template editors can deal with them, just make an edit request as needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: What do you want the notice to say ? - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 21:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Just the same as the previous revision. I tried reverting it myself but it won't let me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip:  Done - FlightTime (open channel) 21:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Tapaterra001 - repeated copyvios and other issues

• Tapaterra001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tapaterra001 has added multiple copyvios at Virtual learning environment, even after several warnings and advice from various editors. Please see the recent edit history of Virtual learning environment with multiple revdels. The latest edit ([94]) is again a copyvio: the text after "In the last 10 years, ..." is 1:1 copypasted from the referenced bbcactive.com source ([95]). Previous text in the same edit is also copied, but from another source (the first one). See also User talk:GermanJoe#RD1 requested, where previous revdels have been verified and discussed in more detail.

Aside from the copyvios, other secondary problems are: the user adds non-neutral content based on low-quality sources and doesn't react to any good-faith messages to resolve such issues. GermanJoe (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I blocked for 31 hours, multiple warnings have been given.S Philbrick(Talk) 00:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism/targeted hatrrassmentharrasent

Approximately a year ago I was annoyed by the fact that the examples of Twitter bots in the examples section of the Twitter bot wiki page, that all the examples of Twitter bots were inactive, they either didn't exist or were suspended or were inactive; I was annoyed by that and as I have two twitter accounts that are Twitter bots (@maskchievous @crowdfundedkill) and they're good examples of Twitter bots, in particular @maskchievous as it auto tweets a random meme with a random emojicon and it also regularly auto changes its profile pic, then I thought to myself my Twitter bots are good examples of Twitter bots and so I decided to update the Twitter bot wiki page adding my two Twitter bots (@maskchievous @crowdfundedkill) to the examples section of the wiki Twitter bot page.

My motive for adding content was not for any personal gain, it was solely to make the wiki page better.

The result of me adding content did dramatically improve the Twitter bot wiki page as my Twitter accounts were good examples of Twitter bots and as I've said all the other examples of Twitter bots were inactive Twitter accounts.

Approximately 6 months later user: Audiodude complained saying that he didn't like that persons had added their own Twitter accounts to the Twitter bot wiki page, he was making reference to the content I had added. Audiodude didnt care less that the content I added made that wiki page better, he was just being spiteful. Audiodude later spitefully removed the content I had added.

Audiodude motive for removing the content I had added was malicious, it was done out of spite! It was essentially targeted harassment of me and was vandalism of the wiki page as his motive for removing content was malicious.

The result of Audiodude removing the content I'd added made the Twitter bot wiki page worse! which proves my case!

I contacted Audiodude about this but he denied it and lies claiming he removed the content I added for other reasons but Audiodude is lying as Audiodude had originally made comments referring to the content I'd added saying that he didn't like that the examples of Twitter bots I'd added were my own Twitter accounts but Audiodude couldn't use that reason to remove content so Audiodude invented a reason that would disguise his real motive for wanting to remove the content.

User: Audiodude should be banned. Also the content I added which Audiodude removed should be put back.