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

Charges of Nazism by an IP

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

---

I've got an editor who's determined to keep comparing me and/or the editors of Daniel (biblical figure) in general to the Nazis.

Here's the first diff (it's at the end of the long comment): [1].

Here's the first diff of me explaining to the user that WP:CIVIL doesn't allow that kind of thing: [2]

Here's the second diff of the user invoking Godwin's law, doubling down on the rhetoric quite a bit: [3]

Here's me warning the user a second time: [4].

Here's the user doing it again, directly using the word "Nazi" and, even worse, capitalizing the whole word: [5].

Here's me warning the user a third time: [6]

And … here's some more. It doesn't mention Nazis directly, but continues in the same vein as previous comments, alluding to various persecutors of Jews [7]. Alephb (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

This latest cryptic and potentially menacing comment is probably worth considering, though I can't quite make out what the user is up to with this one: [8].Alephb (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like an IP on a mission, I reverted the last set of changes with a request to use the talk page politely. These sort of things tend to blow over ....-----Snowded ^TALK 07:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Are his objections accurate? 2601:1C0:6D00:845:99C:7D5A:7EF6:4F2F (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss that on the talk cygnis insignis 07:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Alephb, "dare to be a Daniel", the user have a point in the midst of that tract on systematic bias. Giving them a pass on this outburst would be a very generous (seasonal, and non-Nazi) thing to do and some refinements may emerge as a consequence. cygnis insignis 07:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Interestingly, the IP says in one of their edit summaries: "Non-Jews cannot decide for the Jews what Daniel is in Judaism." [9]. This is very similar to what they posted on Talk:Gab (social network):

  Individuals Outside the Platform Do Not Decide Who the Platform is For

  Either remove any defamatory references suggesting that the platform is for "white supremacists", or place similar descriptions on Facebook, Twitter and Google stating that those platforms have been described as being for "far-left neo-liberals and democratic party operatives who infringe on the U.S. Constitution, discriminate against the majority based on gender and race, and violate the rights of the people to freedom of speech in order to push an extreme liberal political agenda and silence all of their opponents from any side of the political spectrum". If you need a reference for who says Twitter, Facebook, and Google exist to serve far-left interests, you can reference my quote on this page, but there are many, many others, the President of the United States being the most prominent. If you object to those descriptions and statements being placed on Facebook, Twitter, and Google's Wikipedia page, then I highly suggest you remove the following statement from Gab's Wikipedia page: "Gab has been described as a platform for white supremacists and the alt-right." Allowing all groups to exercise their freedom of speech does not ever equate to existing "for" one particular group that just happens to be one of the more controversial groups that is allowed to have and speak their views. Someone could say that Facebook is a platform for "the committee to make America 100% transgender", but obviously that would not be an appropriate, fair, or even lawful description for their Wikipedia page, would it? [10]

  Off hand, I'd say that this editor is more interested in polemically pushing their personal POVs than they are in calm discussion to determine "refinements". Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  Perhaps not, that is up to them and I have no expectations. I see a potentially divisive and noisy situation and recognise that refinements to content can often emerge, despite anyone pushing one POV or editing to make a point (which is worse, especially in regard to freeze peach), improvements via NPOV properly applied ought to make that content less susceptible to drive-by criticism. On other the other hand, indulging those actions is liable to cause blowback, but a block and perhaps this thread may energise any co-ordinated disruption. This is interesting, as you point out, and others may have developed effective counters; I am venturing in without a simple solution to what may be master-level trolling. Or maybe it is one of our cousins who is woefully misguided and only has a superficial point to prosecute, this is the mood I was in when the thread popped, disrupt the disruptors. cygnis insignis 09:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 72 hours. Please let me know if the disruption resumes at that time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll let you know. Alephb (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• "freeze peach"? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• A spoonerism of free speech, generally used to criticise those who're invoking it as a defence of their actions. As XKCD says, it's basically conceding you have no actual defence of your position. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, I thought the editor might be using a speech to text gizmo :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Freeze peaches. EEng 16:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

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

User fabricating statistics etc., no communication after many warnings - please block.

Dude Master 2 (talk · contribs) continues to add unsourced and in some cases obviously fabricated statistics and false/POV information, and refuses to communicate in any way, including never using edit summaries. There have been multiple "final warnings" and a recent ANI report, all of which they ignored, or removed from their talk page without comment. Latest edit today Special:Diff/875092851/prev, arbitrary and unexplained change to population number. See the previous ANI report for more examples. Asking for a block for disruptive editing and failure to communicate, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

May I refer you to the previous ANI thread about this issue? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03, thanks, yes I started that thread recently, and linked to it above. It got archived before anything happened, because the user didn't respond or make any new edits. Now they've returned and continued to make more problematic edits, disregarding the warnings and the previous ANI report, and still no communication whatsoever. So I'm now asking for a block, if only to get their attention. Does that make sense? --IamNotU (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

For example, today they made this edit: Special:Diff/875146508/875152046, changing the population numbers in contradiction to the given source. It looks like the number came from an earlier edit:Special:Diff/860541924/860574843, where they decided to just add a million people... --IamNotU (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User is continuing to edit and fabricate statistics, and hasn't reacted to additional warnings or notices of this thread. Today Special:Diff/875337222/prev they added a citation that gives a number of 65 million people, but in the article they write 72 million. If it was an isolated incident it could be a typo, but it's part of a clear pattern of unsourced altering and "fudging" numbers to suit their POV. Not all their edits are bad, but mostmany are, and the main thing is that they don't communicate at all. --IamNotU (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I looked at their edits, and, indeed, most edits seem good, but edits like this one where they change statistics without amending the source are not really acceptable. Given that they have never reacted in any way to warnings or explanations at their talk page, I am afraid a block could be needed, unless someone manages to find a way to let them understand the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The user is on a final warning basis due to the last warning that was left on his/her user talk page. If this continues, I think that a temporary block is completely fair. As much as we appreciate the good edits (and even the good-faith edits) by this user, edits that add incorrect information to articles and/or don't cite reliable sources is problematic. Edits or behaviors, even if made in good faith, can be disruptive if repeated and lead to action being taken if it's deemed necessary in order to prevent more disruption. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Ymblanter and Oshwah, thanks for taking a look. They've actually deleted a previous "final warning" from another editor on 7 December, and kept on making problematic edits. A couple of days ago, they also deleted final warnings from me, as well as the notice of the first ANI report, without comment. Since then they've only made a couple of edits, those are ok. You're right that many of their contributions are ok, and I don't think they're purposely vandalizing. But they're obviously pulling figures out of thin air and "massaging the numbers" to suit themselves, and ignoring any attempts to communicate with them. I'm not in a rush for a block (temporary, of course), but it seems unlikely they'll respond otherwise. If you like though, I can just keep an eye on it and report back if there are any more problematic edits. --IamNotU (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The 72 million figure is a little bit out of date: [11] (p. 216 of the report or p. 247 of the pdf) says "7.38 crore citizens hold valid passports" (i.e. 73.8 million) as of end-of-2017. It looks to me like around 9 million have been issued in 2018 so far, by adding up the year-to-date figures in the "granted" rows in the download from here. Anyway it looks like good faith editing to me. Please stop going berserk about blocking people (wp:bite) and try to be welcoming and helpful instead. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, "going berserk"? There's no call for that kind of snarky remark! I'm more than happy to be welcoming and helpful, and I usually am, but it's not really possible when someone won't communicate at all, and never has. Two admins have already said that a block would be appropriate due to that. Even if the edits are good faith, changing statistics without giving a source, so that they contradict the existing source, is a problem. Especially so if the numbers appear to be invented: [12], [13], [14], and many others. If they would discuss it, there would be no need to be thinking about a block - the point of a block is to hopefully get them to engage. --IamNotU (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You're not wrong to raise the issue. Even if they are good faith edits, the user should respond one way or another and explain him/herself. It's worth drawing a line in the sand as from now. Next time User:Dude_Master_2 crosses it, I'm willing to make a short-term block for disruptive editing. Deb (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Deeply aggressive IP

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

---

This comment seems to be deeply insulting. I checked what does svinosobaki means: in Russian (or Ukrainian), it means literally "swine-hounds" (or "pig-dogs"). I think this aggressive IP should be blocked and all its comments removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

They made one objectionable edit on that page? Unless there are more blocking is overkill. WP:DENY. First we try “don’t fight with them” and hope they don’t fight with us. Blocking can stimulate a troll. They seem to have made a few edits and quit six hours ago. If they come back with more of the same they could be blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 05:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think "objectionable" is an adequate word in that case. The IP (i) insulted other users, (ii) made a broad claim about a whole nation, (iii) accused other users of working for KGB. Usually, that is quite sufficient for a permanent ban.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The issue is how to minimize disruption. I strongly recommend ignoring them. If they continue to disrupt the conversation we can try to slow them down with blocks and semi-protection, but often this just energized the troll and leads to more trouble than ignoring them. Jehochman ^Talk 05:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: You need to ping the IP about this discussion with {{subst:ANI-notice}}, otherwise this discussion is invalid. -INeedSupport- ^{(Time for Christmas!)} 16:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Why don’t you please listen before you speak because you are giving terrible advice. Go read WP:DENY and WP:BURO. Jehochman ^Talk 16:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Oh. Sorry then. At least I didn't warn the IP. -INeedSupport- ^{(Time for Christmas!)} 17:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers. Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a pretty obvious troll, all of their contributions are trolling, which includes posting in Ukrainian on a talk page of an English native speaker and summarily accusing all editors who object renaming Kiev to Kyiv in being paid Russian agents. I gave them a warning a couple of days ago, and I suspect they never come back. If they continue trolling, and, in particular, in such a sensitive topic as Russian-Ukrainian relations, they must be immediately blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ymblanter. If any trolling, incivility, or personal attacks continue, the IP should be temporarily blocked from editing just like anybody else would be. However, since the IP user hasn't made any additional edits since 18:48, 23 December 2018, we can't take action now; doing so would serve absolutely no purpose. If disruption continues, it should be reported to AIV or you can let myself know and I'll be happy to step in (just message me on my user talk page and link me to this discussion so that I'm reminded about this issue). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Complaints with EurovisionNim

For the past 4 months I been going back and forth with user EurovisionNim. The problem I have with him is how he constantly try to copy everything I do. Things like, how I photograph, how I speak, what words I use.

I doubt that it breaking any official policies broken but it just isn't creative, it not real skills, it just mimicking somebody else. Other photographers which focus on cars have there own distinct style yet still valuable to be use in the articles. Nim just seem to piggyback on the biggest fish he could find for his own gain. This is fine if you are starting out because since I done it until I found my own way on how to photograph things. Nim was here far longer then me and had plenty of time to find his own creative field that isn't just cars but never has. He also have a tendency of bragging of things like "I been here longer then you" or "I started this trend before you" and go on about that he expect his pictures to appear in different media and etc like it a game of which of our photos appear in the most.

Evidence to support this:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vauxford&diff=871445766&oldid=871445518 (When I recropped a photo I took of a Tesla Model X, since that edit, Nim done a wave of “less tighter crop” versions of existing images to try and make his use of image more justifiable, any other photo he took or updated before the 1st of December had little to no relation to cropping..)

Around June I started to photograph side shots of cars as a little extra but not intention of using on articles. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1992_Peugeot_205_Zest_1.1_Side.jpg (My first side shot)

After that, from August to October, he began adding side shots to articles. Again he never took side shots before until I did.

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Kia_Picanto&diff=863719283&oldid=862152307
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Volvo_XC40&diff=855593190&oldid=855502294
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Porsche_Cayenne&diff=861579492&oldid=860432902
• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Mitsubishi_Eclipse_Cross&diff=862140498&oldid=860852053

Times where he take words I said recently and use it to try and justified his reason.

Examples like this, is where I mentioned the term chromatic aberrations to address a issue with his image. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:%C5%A0koda_Fabia&diff=prev&oldid=862070333

Then a day later, he used the exact word as I did which I had little doubt he would understand what it means because I personally didn’t at the time, yet he still used the term as a reason why his photo should be used. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vauxford&diff=862149241&oldid=861988612

Other things is that he like to taunt (bit blunt, but it the closest word I could describe it) with comments like these, knowing that I might respond to them:

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toyota_Hilux&diff=next&oldid=874126177

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EurovisionNim&diff=next&oldid=871501295

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EurovisionNim&diff=872624577&oldid=872601164

It got to this point that me and EurovisionNim will continue with petty exchange with each other and from suggestion with another user, this is suppose to be the right place to go. This is the base evidence and problems, I can try and dig up additional one if needed. --Vauxford (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Vauxford. It seems that an editor is learning and is emulating the work of another editor (you) because they admire your work. Do I have it right? That doesn't violate any policies and guidelines that I am aware of. This is a collaborative project based on freely licensed content after all. If the issue is "petty exchanges", then the solution is easy. Don't engage in petty exchanges. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Bang on the money Cullen328. I like learning. Vauxford, please note I do not revert/replace for no reason. I only do that because I know my (or someone elses) image is better quality. Its like no problem, I have every right to be WP:BOLD. You seem to be taking me for a ride, as opposed to helping me. I can picture on whatever car I wish. I was told by Mr.choppers "...if a shot of a Holden Commodore parked in London is of high quality then that could be the best one to use. EurovisionNim used to annoy me to no end, but when a photo is better than mine then there is no point arguing..." Exactly, this is what I mean't. You need to understand clearly that I do not revert editings without cause. i do not mind being reverted, but I do mind if the reverter is the creator of the files, such as in the case of Vauxford as explained in [15], [16]. I discussed the issue with Vauxford but he stubbornly refused. I think my proposed suggestion, is that going forward, whenever I make a replacement of Vauxford's examples, another editor can revert it, so it prevent bias. I am more than happy for this proposal. In addition, he expects for us to "let him know before I make a revert" which I think its completely ridiculous. This is not his personal website, hes not the king of Wikipedia. I have been doing the same thing for the last 3 years and haven't had much complaints so I don't see how I should make any changes, except maybe going easy. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Going easy is always a good approach and ambitious photographers are commonly unable to be neutral when comparing their own work to photos taken by another editor. Aggressive pushing of one's own work into an article is disruptive, and photographers should always defer to the opinions of uninvolved editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Given the number of editors who insist that everyone else must do things their way, it's startling yet somewhat refreshing to see someone insisting that someone else must not do things their way. EEng 06:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

A good example of a discussion in relation to images is Talk:Audi_Q7#Audi_Q7_great_example, which focuses on uninvolved editors, between two images such as File:2018 Audi Q7 (4M MY18) 3.0 TDI quattro wagon (2018-11-02).jpg & File:2017 Audi Q7 S Line Quattro 3.0 Front.jpg. Editors except Vauxford think that the Australian example is far better quality than the other example. I understand that his DSLR image are better, but not the powershot examples. Again this is Wikipedia not a personal website, editors have the right to contribute in peace. Based on majority consensus, the Australian Audi is the much better example. I let go of the Audi A4 edit, as I admit I did request for the photo, so all good. Cheers --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It boggles me that you are so obsessed with the Audi Q7 article and it images. Stop with the rhetorical answers. My personal problem with you isn't the only problem I'm talking about, you being disruptive in other things such as taking the BRD page far too literally and almost every day you keep making these discussions where we have to pick which image is better and what not and you ping everyone that might've agreed with you on something unrelated in the past. You seem so determined to change images almost every week for your own gain and this is the problem I'm trying to point out. You said that you trying to be a better editor but to me and others you just became more annoying and tiresome to work with and what worst is that you simply can't grasp the concept of that. --Vauxford (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)'

WP:BRD is technically an official policy. It is linked to WP:CONSENSUS and also WP:BOLD. I also have a problem with you too. Thats why I set out a compromise on Talk:Audi_Q7#Audi_Q7_great_example, which I would like you to see please. It is essential that we follow up on discussions and also have a fair share of images. You, on the other hand, have been trying to randomly replace perfectly good quality images with some of your ones. It doesn't matter, I relied on WP:CARPIX for a long time and this guideline has been told to me many times. Why do you need to be so difficult? Is it because you think your images are better than the guidelines? I am thinking of not continuing anymore. This, along with some of the concepts seem to be difficult. I think you aren't taking higher quality images enough, all you care about is your images, which in fair respects I understand, but if someone were to replace your image, don't you want to go into a consensus? I don't care much about the images, but my example is pretty decent. Why do you think your image is the better one. The majority have decided for the Australian image. If a third neutral opinion is given, then I won't make any further edits. You seem to treat Wikipedia like your own website. I suggested you focus on the big sellers in the UK, such as BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche etc. or cars not sold in Australia, such as Vauxhall, SEAT, Dacia etc. It appears either you want to only have your images, or you just are trying to bog me down. Besides I've set a compromise and to end this dispute, I suggest you take it. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

But it the fact that you do this almost every day, JUST because it a official policies, doesn't mean you have to shove it in our face on a daily basis, you take every thing and what people say so literally, using a metaphor, what if someone told you in order to get better photograph you would have to "kill two birds with one stone", what the betting you would actually kill two birds in belief that it would improve your photos? That how your mind seem to take in things. That Audi Q7 discussion doesn't matter at this point, don't try and sway the point I'm trying to get across to you and the admins. --Vauxford (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The point being is I did the exact same thing with OSX. However he didn't complain, but you seem to be the only one who cares about your images and only will allow reverts when a user lets you know. I told you the compromise, which would solve our issues. Its essential that policies are given to users because the fact remains your edit summaries when you revert, you don't even do or you think your image is "fine" when in fact it is not. The point of CARPIX is that it was told to me [17], and therefore it would be suggested by the community to utilise this guideline. If you followed that guideline and photographed exactly to the guideline, and if I replaced yours, and you reverted it, then I'd have no problems as you'd be 'following the books.' Again, you were the one when you first started to consult me, so I suggested I give you a list, but now you seem to take this liberty to picture every car on the road. Whilst its not a problem, you just replace images randomly. His edit summaries are completely bogus, suhc as "previous is fine" or something like that, which indicates he may have a problem with the quality of images on the site. I'm not sure if I'll be needed on Wikipedia as theres no point of me contributing if I cannot post high quality shots to replace the existing low quality example. Vauxford, its only the Audi image, why are you making this a big deal, I want to compromise and half the use of yours and mine as per this discussion. I will of course leave the foreign Wikipedias for your Q7 and I'll handle the English, Wikidata and Simple Wikipedia. That means its easier and to prevent further discussion. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but, "You take the foreign language wikis and I'll handle English Wikipedia" is not really a compromise. It's more like "get off my lawn." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I think thats the main problem with Vauxford, he wants me to focus on non-UK cars, so I believe hes the one thats being disruptive. You cannot stop anyone from picturing anything. It seems extremely inconvienent, and unfair because the same cars that exist on the Australian market can be sold in the UK. Vauxford, doesn't matter if a Holden Commodore in London or a Vauxhall Astra appear in Australia, whoever pictures the better one can be used. Its plain simple. I have a strong stickler for higher quality images. Vauxford has accused me of not able to make my own decisions. This is the type of annoyance that I see from Vauxford thinking he'd have the right to replace all his images. In addition, users are expected to let Vauxford know if they are to revert his images, without him seeing for himself. He believes all photographers should have their own styles. When i began in 2014, I was only using an iPad to take car photos and a crummy camera, but OSX helped me improve my photos. He also believes that his images are more superior to mine and accuses mine of being a "carbon copy" [18]. I don't see why he should be focusing on the Asian vehicles and let me focus on the cars not sold in the UK. Its Wikipedia, not a dictatorship, and you are expected to comply with guidelines and policies prescribed. If no one complies with these guidelines, then whats the point of them being there? You may as well delete them. If rules can be bent, then you'd be seeing users able to vandalize articles, which to me is absolutely not tolerated. I think if Vauxford followed CARPIX guidelines, then I wouldn't be starting these arguments. I suggest for all images taken by myself and Vauxford, before replacing, there should be a third opinion. It would be non-negoiable and this could resolve 95% of our problems. Also I know what the image guidelines on CARPIX pretty much off by heart (my memory isn't too good, but this has been concreted into my head), therefore its essential this policy is given to people. I'm strict about these policies and follow by the book as this is how I was told when I began in 2014. If I wasn't told about CARPIX, then I'd not follow these guidelines --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

EurovisionNim and Vauxford, perhaps you could both collaborate on writing a Wikipedia-internal Howto on how best to photograph cars? This would allow others to also learn and help contribute! —Sladen (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I hate to be a grinch Sladen, but we have different ways of photographing cars. Vauxford, why don't you add me on Facebook and we can use Messenger to share images. This way, we can work out our problems. I did the exact thing with SquiddyFish, and therefore we are working hard, and ensuring Wikipedia is at its optimum. However, theres no such thing as 'copying' photographs. Also he needs to understand something. I use two lens to photograph cars :). I like your suggestion, and I think Vauxford can edit up the Vauxhall articles to make it to the best quality. Use your books mate that you have and ramp up Wikipedia !! Its not all about photos. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

EurovisionNim Make up your mind! First you said your taking a WikiBreak which you ditched 3 days in. Now you made yourself "Retired" and then later "Semi-retired" and now you trying to sway other people who aren't fully aware of this situation as well as indirectly telling me to edit somewhere else. Well I'm not buying it. Just a reminder, "Retired" means one have stopped working permanently. Vauxford (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Remember, this is my right. I am allowed to do that if I wish. Remember the discussion we had with Oshwah. He explained I am allowed to retire from editing, then if I change my mind that I want to edit again I am allowed to return and continue. I am returning on a semi-editing plan. I've left a little note underneath explaining I have family issues, so I need the time to have a break, but I cannot seem to retire. Its too hard. I can't seem to retire, its just too hard. Its not like disruptive anyway, so why do you need to make such a big fuss. Theres bigger stuff to worry about. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Nim - These semi-retired/retired templates are to be used when you're not really on any more or are taking long breaks away or are no longer editing here at all .... You added the template(s) to your userpage[19] and then 7-8 hours later removed them[20],

It's also worth noting you say have family issues but here you say "I am not going to be continuing this argument. I think for the best of everyone here, its best I retire. I don't see how I can contribute much with the limits you are restricting me" - Ofcourse I'm by no means saying you're lying but it seems odd you would say the first comment and then 10-11 hours later say it's for a completely different reason (If I had family issues I would not only state this but I'd also not edit here)

If you have family issues then you should stop editing and focus on your family - Please remember we're only a website - Friends and family are far more important. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 14:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to be brutally honest Davey2010, my editing style has been a little bit too much for you guys. I reckon as we discussed on my talkpage, I want to take a step back. This is one of my new years resolutions for 2019. Again I've explained to Vauxford based on the discussion with Oshwah, that users are able to come back when they wish. I do these, but actually I made a silly mistake, so I'm doing this on a part time basis, balancing my life. I think Wikipedia has got into my bloodstream. i know most to all of Wiki policies off my heart, especially CARPIX, so hence its why I've been making these edits. Vauxford should really be focusing on this. Again, you are one of my friends Davey, along with Oshwah and OSX, however my family issues I don't think have been the best realistically. I lost my grandfather on the 3rd of December, so this has really racked me, and he has been sick. It has come to people like Oshwah who encourage me to edit as much as I wish. I do not intend to lie but I do however change my mind a lot, which may be annoying, and I do apologise, however remember see WP:CHOICE. Users can feel free to stop editing permanently, or decide to come back. I have you guys for the last 5 years I've joined and most of you guys have been supportive whenever I felt down. I've used self-requested blocks in the past, but haven't been very effective to me. I think now Wiki is becoming too many opinionated, but I cannot seem to retire. Its too hard for me. I enjoy learning new things. Now Vauxford has shown me ways to better myself, but I note he is taking it a bit too far. Mate, i think for the better we need to work together and lets continue to build Wikis. My writing skills are extremely poor, so thats why I resort to photos. I can however supersed WP:CARPIX and Vauxford and I along with a few others can work on ensuring a unity of car image guidelines. That means we can prevent confusions. Look, see Wikipedia:Wikipediholic, I am described as a full-blown wikiholic. I am usually on the spot with my emails, however I haven't been out much, so I should now improve my exisitng photos. I hope Vauxford understands, because I mean no harm to Wiki at all. I've received not many barnstars, but I've worked hard to ensure Wikis. I guess I am too passionate, which I unfortunately don't know how to control. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what else to say other then this, even with what you do and how you change your editing habits my judgement and how I view you is going to be same. --Vauxford (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

For some reason things like this come up every so often regarding automotive images. I admit I'm not entirely familiar with this specific dispute as it seems to largely involve late-model European-market cars so I haven't seen most of the edits in question (although this decidedly unhelpful one is among the few).

A large part of the problem is this: an image of a car spotted in a parking lot is rarely an excellent one. By nature, there's other cars, buildings, people, etc. as distractions in the background - and these images usually end up excessively cropped as a result. Sometimes one gets lucky and the car is in the right place and things work out (Vauxford has some very good ones), but generally the best photos come from the car's owner, who can position the car well against a good background and get the proper angle on it (many don't, but that's beside the point). However, most people aren't going to upload pictures of their personal vehicles, so that leaves the parking-lot ones. And most are perfectly fine for the purpose, but the result of that is what you see above - constant debate, and sometimes edit warring, over whose image is the most adequate. In a lot of the discussions I've seen, if the image were graded on a 100-point scale the debate would be over which is a 55 and which is a 56. While there is no "Don't change it if it's already good enough" rule, there does come a point where Wikipedia is not helped in any way by such an incremental improvement. It ends up being a revolving door of people wanting their own image showcased because there's not enough difference between the two to simply select one. Photography seems to attract the most eager ones; I recall in the past prolific photographers being followed around by others trying to become the same. The taunting noted in the above diffs is going much too far though - that sounds like some sort of grudge.

EurovisionNim, your comment of I can...supersede WP:CARPIX... is cause for concern. That guideline is (or was, until the massive back-and-forth changes over the past month) the product of consensus. Nobody gets to throw that out in order to fit their own photography. --Sable232 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I have told Vauxford till I am blue in the face, that guideline should be adhered to. If there was no consensus, or the guideline didn't exist, then half of the car photos would be piles of junk. WP:CARPIX is a guideline I have adhered to for many years i've been on the site. If only Vauxford followed that guideline firmly, then, as I explained 95% of our arguments would have not been in place. Otherwise it'd be time before one of us gives up, and I guarantee, I've made lots of friends such as Davey2010, Oshwah & OSX (retired). These guidelines I follow , I don't care what they are, if its that big. Regardless, Vauxford is more than welcome to update/edit the guideline all he wishes. By doing so, we can make sure the thing is in order and ready to be successful. Remember, consensus is non-negoiable, its one of the five pillars on Wikipedia. A quarter of his photos do not adhere to the guidelines prescribed. A lot of Vauxford's images are distracting, but cannot really fault him, however he claims a small spec of dirt and 1/10 of a car behind is fine. Mate, sometimes if theres a good background, such as in the case of this one, then theres no grounds to replace it. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

"prolific photographers being followed around by others trying to become the same." I'm glad that someone get some elements of what I'm trying to get across with this user as well as evaluating the evidence I provided. Nim, I tried to improve it with some basic and neutral rule of thumbs, Turning a basic and easy to read guideline where the reader can choose to follow it or not into a god awful mess. I even put slightly more effort into that contribution by intentionally photograph these examples specifically for that section. This is a example of you taking stuff too literally and ruining it in the process.

Another thing I forgot to point out. Nim doesn't seem to understand the difference between a essay and a official Wikipedia policies123, he seem mash them into one thing and gets exasperated because apparently I keep "violating" them. --Vauxford (talk) 07:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Its not violating any Wikipedia policies, so why should I change? OSX expected all car spotters, including myself to follow his set guidelines to the highest standards. Through your addition of these images, I took the chance to build onto the discussion, as I saw some worse examples. Also the comment "...why can't you focus on cars not in the UK..." [21] is an indicator that you don't want anyone else to contribute cars that are sold in the UK. I mean, is this some joke or something? If a Holden decides to sell one of their cars in the UK (Commodore), you'd tell me that I am not allowed to picture any Holdens? Its everyone's right to photograph whatever car they wish to do, and showcase it on Wikipedia. The guidelines at WP:CARPIX should be adhered to by anyone who is part of Wikiproject Automobiles. I've suggested for you to photograph cars that are European mainly, like Porsche, SEAT, Aston-Martin, Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz and let someone else do the other vehicles. Its gotten to a point where theres no chance for anyone to share their images on the site, rather you are driving away all the contributors. WP:CARPIX is a guideline which anyone can edit, hell if an admin on this chat decides he wants to edit it, and is not part of WP automobiles, he can. I have utilised some of my 2018 examples to further make it more comprehensive. Charles01 is the main person that should be blamed for the hardship caused. Also I don't really understand why you always get worked up with my images, yes I do replace them, but generally for valid reasons. I try to ensure my images are "perfect". If it wasn't for OSX, I'd be still using my iPad or iPhone and then they'd be low quality junk. I don't replace all your images, however I do if I know mine are improvements of yours (even for little things, I get worked up, as I want Wikipedia to be the best article as possible, this applies to writing too). I only replace them when I know mine (or someone elses, such as M 93's) is better. I like your Vauxhall and SEAT images and others not sold in Australia. Cheers --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 08:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You are basically reciting sentences that been said by other users (e.g. "If a Holden decides to sell one of their cars in the UK (Commodore), you'd tell me that I am not allowed to picture any Holdens? " - which was previously said by Mr.chopper, these are not your own words or your thoughts. Every time someone point out something against you, you flip it around to point at me, this is no way of resolving this conflict. I discredit OSX due to his nature in the past, especially from all the past discussion that he was involved in. I never had a proper conflict with anyone else other then you. Not to be harsh but the way you are talking right now is just proven me how much of a burden you are to people you work with. --Vauxford (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

To summarize things appropriately here, I discussed this dispute between Vauxford and EurovisionNim on my user talk page here and tried offering input and a solution to the matter and to no avail. You can refer to the user talk page section I just linked for more information and a summary of what this dispute is over exactly.

Vauxford - as stated by others above, it's perfectly fine for an editor to use the edit summaries, responses, and other content from others like EurovisionNim has been doing - remember that nobody owns any content on Wikipedia and everything is free for other editors to take and use for themselves. Over the many years that I've been an editor on Wikipedia, I've taken the good templates, scripts, responses, edit summaries, etc that I've seen others use and I incorporated them to improve my editing and how I communicate with others; they helped shape who I'm seen as and how I communicate to this day. If I were met with messages such as, "don't copy me or my things or I'll report you" (such as what you've been conveying to EurovisionNim here, on my user talk page, and in other places), I wouldn't be the editor I am today. This project and building this encyclopedia is what should come as first priority in your mind, and if someone uses your style of editing, adding edit summaries, communicating with others, or use of templates in order to improve this project and make Wikipedia a positive experience for others, you should be happy and you should be proud that somebody sees what you're doing in such a high regard and enough that they incorporate it into their edits and habits. There are editors (such as Thegooduser, TheSandDoctor, LakesideMiners, and many others) who use the user page formatting I designed, the user talk page and edit notice templates and formatting I've created, as well as many other templates and scripts that I created for myself to use. It makes me happy to see other editors follow my example and use the tools, scripts, styles, and templates I created for myself, and the manner and methods I use to edit and communicate with others to improve upon themselves, improve the project, and make Wikipedia a better place to be apart of. If you have the right mindset and attitude, and you truly have Wikipedia's quality, this project's growth, and maintaining a positive culture regarding editors and communicating and sharing with others as your top priority (as you and all editors who are here to build an encyclopedia should have), then you should be open to others copying from others and you should have no problem with editors copying what you do or how you edit in order to make their edits better.

Vauxford, EurovisionNim - Regarding car images, WP:CARPIX, and this other dispute that's mixed into this discussion and complaint here: you two need to sort this out among yourselves peacefully, and get neutral input from other editors in order to fully resolve this matter. You both have been doing the right thing so far; none of you have engaged in edit warring, and you both have been very good about discussing disagreements with each other and without allowing it to spill over into any articles and cause disruption or hardship to others. This is commendable, and I can easily speak for many other editors in saying that we appreciate it and wish that other editors had the ability and willpower to do the same. However, this dispute appears to be something that should probably be made on the project's talk page and will most likely require the input of other editors who are involved with WikiProject Automobiles and adding photos and pictures to car-related articles in order to help resolve.

No administrators here are going to step in and take action or block anyone from this discussion, and no administrator here is going to be able to resolve everything between you two and provide the silver bullet with a perfect answer, recommendation that hasn't already been suggested to you both, or administrator "magic" that's going to make it all go away and with everyone happy. I have a feeling that this is what you're looking for, and I unfortunately have to tell you that this isn't going to happen. The fact that nobody is going to take action against one or both of you should be a pleasing thing for you both to hear, since (as I said above) you two are mostly doing the right things... I just think that somebody ran to ANI a bit too soon and with the wrong mindset about certain things, and that two different arguments and disputes are being thrown into one discussion.

In summary: Regarding the complaint by Vauxford about EurovisionNim copying his style, editing, and edit summary usage... I think this issue can end here and now given what I said above. It's allowed, should be encouraged instead of met with push-back and resistance, and is quite frankly a silly subject to continue arguing about any further. Given the issues with WP:CARPIX: take it to the project's talk page, start a new section, continue the discussion, and ask for the input from other editors (start a request for comment there if necessary) and get this resolved. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah It all sound using people's templates and possibly their editing summary but him trying to do everything I do and trying become Vauxford #2 is problematic. It just result in bland, uninspiring results, I keep telling him to think for himself and hold his ground when people criticise him, he prevent that from happening by latching on the biggest fish (e.g. me or some other person that agreed with him over something unrelated 2 months ago).

A case like this does result a grey area so I don't expect any action to be taken anyway but I just want to have these complaints come to light about him. Another thing that I find irritating is that he stalks me everywhere I go. I know he does as proven when I made a edit on some Czech village that was razed by the Nazis and I added a photo. It couldn't be any more unrelated to cars or anything in his field yet he insist of making some form of edit, even when it wasn't necessary. What you said above is completely fine and I'm not against it but the way Nim does it on a scale equivalent of a parasite. I don't stalk and get right up Charles, Davey or some other editor's back on a daily basis. --Vauxford (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Vauxford - If an editor is doing everything that you do, that's an opportunity to assume good faith, understand that they don't have the level of confidence and self-esteem as you or many others do, and to mentor someone. Help the user to build their confidence and their self-esteem and be there for them when they need you. Is that truly and honestly something you can't do for someone who needs it? Saying to them, "you're copying me too much and that I'm going to report you for it" isn't going to help them become their own person as you mention above as something you wish they'd do. It's going to push them away and make them feel isolated and unable to apply their enthusiasm and their personal desire to improve the project and truly feel like they belong somewhere. I understand that Wikipedia is not therapy, but what EurovisionNim is doing isn't against policy. Just help him. You may disagree with me here, but I don't think that giving other users and editors praise and encouragement, the assurance that there's nothing to be afraid of, positive reinforcement for their good work and their growth, and the mentorship, words, and tools they need to build their self-confidence and their self-esteem so that they feel welcome on Wikipedia and that they belong here is something that I consider too much to ask of experienced editors who truly care about this project, want to see its popularity and participation grow, and want to be looked upon as a leader and an editor that the community respects and will "shush everyone in the room" when you stand up to speak because they all want to hear your words of knowledge and wisdom. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Oshwah. Vauxford, by you making the reverts and saying you have a dislike, is de-motivating me and not allowing me to perform to my full potential. I can't imagine what you are trying to do, with your images and your comment saying my images are junk. The images I upload at least have some value, especially since I did a revert and I informed you in relation to the reverts, but you in your stubborness believe that your image, because its high quality is going to be an improvement. Unfortunately, not to be offensive, but you are wrong. Whilst I appreciate your uploads, users would expect the conventional model of the Mitsubishi outlander, as opposed to the PHEV models, so thats why I suggested you focus on it. Quality is not all about everything, it depends on how you use it. In Australia, the Outlander PHEV is rare, but the Outlander standard is very common, so thats why i left a comprehensive edit summary. In addition for car classification, I let you use your Skoda example, because I knew that was the better example and was rated Quality image. Look, its not all the time I replace your image for the sake, sometimes I use your image for that, and thats what I did. Its a deal and therefore we are all happy. I've left you a msg on your talkpage to discuss this over. If you make a revert, but the edit summary I cannot understand, I'm just going to revert you back. You are permitted 3 reverts within 24 hrs. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

2601:143:4200:700 range

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

---

I guess this is the reincarnation of the 2601:191:8402:5F89::/64 range blocked for three months according to the request: User:2601:191:8402:5f89:252d:bf9e:6a07:fc26.

Edit warring:

• [22], [23]
• [24], [25]
• [26], [27]

Personal attacks: stop with your childish rant Nicoljaus

And so on--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The IP addresses involved in the diffs provided are:

• 2601:143:4200:700:C15C:3B44:FD5F:22ED
• 2601:143:4200:700:C0C8:56C1:3F27:EDA7
• 2601:143:4200:700:947:23FB:FF97:5EE3
• 2601:143:4200:700:6C67:A7BA:217A:7A61

...Or 2601:143:4200:700::/64

The IP range is from the same ISP, ASN, and geo-location as the IPv6 range in the previous ANI discussion linked here. Hence, I've blocked the IPv6 /64 range for three months for block evasion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Nicoljaus - You bet! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Kennyalley spamming Wikidata

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

---

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

Despite being alerted of this discussion by another contributor, Kennyalley has continued to spam wikidata infoboxes across many articles and have accused me of being deceptive here, before removing the discussion altogether. I'm not sure what should be done, which is why I have brought it here. IWI (chat) 00:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slowking4. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: That explains a lot. IWI (chat) 01:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Someone needs to take action on this user. IWI (chat) 12:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

They are not a sockpuppet according to a CheckUser. IWI (chat) 12:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

This user is still edit warring over this; could an admin please help? IWI (chat) 17:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• I was about to block the user since they continue to revert and to insert Wikidata-drawn infoboxes, but then I went to their talk page and saw that they make a valid point: Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC was actually closed as no consensus, and the common ground was that data imported from Wikidata must be reliable by the standards of the English Wikipedia. I am going to pull out of this discussion before it becomes one more Wikidata battleground, but let me say that (1) the first question to be investigated must be whether the edits by Kennyalley comply with our notability requirements, and so far I do not see a meaningful discussion of this issue, though I might have missed something; (2) if we are talking about behavioral issues, which we possibly might be talking about, the behavior of both parties here is clearly confrontational. If you guys tone down a bit and try to discuss the edits quietly something might come out of it. --Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I put a comment on his talk page and he deleted it after copying my comment. He refuses to discuss. IWI (chat) 13:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

They are also inserting copyrighted images everywhere as well. IWI (chat) 13:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the copyrighted images, as far as I can see, they are adding the images as fair use, and, whereas they initially did not understand that the size of fair-use uploads is limited, everything else seems fine to me: They upload images to illustrate articles, and they fill in the fair-use template. Concerning their refusal to discuss the problem with Wikidata infoboxes (whether this is spamming or not), this is indeed an issue, and some discussion should happen somewhere at some point. However, I as a user have a strong opinion concerning the Wikidata usage here, and I do not feel now I should be the administrator leading this discussion. I hope someone else can get interested.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

This for example is a revert of my revert, note also how they copied my edit summary. IWI (chat) 20:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

And here they completely ignored an in-page warning not to change it to an infobox. IWI (chat) 21:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Also, what an excellent admin. I can’t even tell what your POV is. IWI (chat) 21:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

After reading through this ANI and Ymblanter's comment after his/her investigation of the matter at-hand, I think that what boils down to the bread and butter of things here on Wikipedia is that this is a content-related dispute and a peaceful discussion and consensus needs to happen. I know that ImprovedWikiImprovment has tried multiple times to talk to Kennyalley and ask the user to participate in a discussion and to no avail. I've added a notice to Kennyalley's user talk page regarding edit warring and also notified him/her of this ANI discussion (I searched through the edit history of Kennyalley's user talk page and didn't find that this was done, so I did so). Details and information on Wikidata that are under dispute should probably be resolved there, since that is the project that is involved directly (I'm not familiar with their overall guidelines and policies regarding sources and the addition of information there, so I could be wrong here). However, the addition of information to articles on this project (even if it's from Wikidata) should be cited by a reliable source. I don't see information or content as accurate simply because it's from Wikidata (again, please correct me if I'm wrong or if I'm missing something here). In the end, Content-related issues and disputes need to be discussed and the edit warring policies respected. Users who engage in edit warring and refuse to discuss matters can be blocked. If the edits continue and no attempts to discuss the matter comes from Kennyalley, I wouldn't be opposed to action being taken to prevent additional disruption. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I’d like to address a mistake in your response: I had notified the user and such notice is still visible on the talk page. IWI (chat) 08:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

ImprovedWikiImprovment - Well.... I'm obviously an idiot then... lol. I apologize; I didn't see the notification when I looked, and the notice I added wasn't meant to imply anything toward you or that you didn't do this. I just wanted to add a notification in case it wasn't done. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah and DGG: I wasn’t suggesting that of course :). On another note it is clear they are still edit warring, ignoring your warning as well now. This user isn’t going to stop and it is very harmful IMO. A lot of the information in these infoboxes is unsourced. IWI (chat) 14:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

They’ve also accused me of meatpuppetry, simply because I have the same objection as another editor, which is the third PA they have made. IWI (chat) 14:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added a comment to that discussion and asked the user to stop. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ImprovedWikiImprovment - The edits after the changes I warned the user for edit warring over seem to mostly add sections and make other small changes. There's one edit here made by this user just moments ago that adds an infobox, but it doesn't look to be pulling anything from Wikidata, and the information appears to be pulled from content within the same article that's referenced. Can you verify for sure that this user is continuing this very trend and after the edits they made to Allegory of Wealth at 09:59, 29 December 2018 (which I warned them for)? We don't want to jump to any administrative actions and for edits that don't violate policy or were made before warnings that the user received afterwards. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Well, this edit (made 30 minutes after he replied to your warning and several hours after you posted it) adds a wikidata infobox back that I removed earlier, blatant edit warring. For now, that’s the only one although I don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t do it again. IWI (chat) 14:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

You didn’t warn him for that edit is what I’m trying to say. IWI (chat) 14:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I've remedied this with the action I described below. This is the appropriate path to take that will resolve this matter. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The actual summary from that RfC was "There is a consensus that data drawn for Wikidata might be acceptable for use in Wikipedia if Wikipedians can be assured that the data is accurate, and preferably meets Wikipedia rules of reliability. For the other issues raised within this RfC, there was no clear consensus." I would interpret that "might" to indicate that discussion is required individually, with every use justified, and if challenged, not restored without consensus, and especially that mass insertions without prior consensus are disruptive since they prevent proper consideration. Consensus may change in the future of course, whether WP-wide or in specific areas. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ymblanter, DGG, thank you both for supplying some context. I have just reverted Kennyalley on Anna Anni, because I find their dictum, "the infobox includes reliable sourced statements from wikidata, and an image. please do not revert without a clear consensus", to be unreasonable. It is also high time that the editor starts responding here: these are legitimate concerns. (And while we're on the topic, I think it is also high time that User:ImprovedWikiImprovment leave this matter be--I don't see that much good has come out of their involvement.) The larger matter, of what to do with Wikidata, that's another question, but let it be clear that there is, as far as I know, no mandate that allows users to just fetch Wikidata and drop them in here. Plus, simply adding infoboxes all over the place also strikes me as something that shouldn't just happen without discussion. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies, Oshwah, and DGG: Well we wouldn’t be talking about it if I hadn’t have got involved since I brought the matter here. I’ve spoken in a civil manner to the user and I don’t see how I’ve worsened the issue. IWI (chat) 14:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Drmies - I just added AC/DS alerts to Kennyalley's user talk page regarding edits made to BLP articles and edits made to the infoboxes of articles, and followed up with a detailed warning regarding this user's behavior. The diff is here. If they fail to discuss the matters at-hand and if disruption continues - the user will be sanctioned and banned from editing infoboxes or linking infoboxes to Wikidata without prior consensus first. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Shoot, User:Oshwah, we have DS for infoboxes too now? See what happens if I leave the room for a few minutes... Thanks for that. I do think that there are problem here, though apparently Bbb23 couldn't shed any more light on the matter. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Drmies - Sadly, we do... but for good reasons (obviously). I agree: there are serious issues here and I feel that going down this pathway is the right thing to do - especially given Kennyalley's lack of participation in both talk page discussions and this ANI. I hope things don't have to come down to having to apply sanctions to this user, but the ball's in his/her court now... either things improve in these areas or sanctions will be applied. What happens is ultimately up to Kennyalley... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this is appropriate action. IWI (chat) 16:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• An SPI was started over this user, suggesting that they were User:Slowking4, which was rejected as the geographical data was different. However, it's become fairly clear that this is Slowking4.

• First of all, the username - if you look at Slowking4's other socks, they have pseudo-rhyming names such as "QuincyChincy", "Grantant", "Burkejurk", "Hoyabeetya", "Lortonsorton", and so on.
• The editing pattern is identical. Uploading "non-free historical portraits" to biographies.
• Their communication is completely identical. Look at their talkpage posts - a colon followed by a non-capitalised sentence. Slowking - [28] [29] [30] [31] etc. Kennyalley - [32] [33] [34] [35] etc.
• General unpleasantness and abuse levelled at anyone who disagrees with them.

• Given this, I have blocked Kennyalley indefinitely as a sock. Any of their contributions may therefore be rolled back and/or deleted. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite! Thanks for the response, your input, and your actions taken here. I've added this information into the SPI report and I'll have it wrapped up and closed shortly. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you everyone for your help. IWI (chat) 18:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I have mass rolled back all top edits, anddeleted all their new pages/images. Please check any remaining material that may be at odds with our policies/guidelines/consensus.

When I filed the SPI I was rather sure it was the same editor, but not sure enough. Their behaviour now wraps it up. Don't worry, they'll be back in a day or three. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, the edits made by this user that should be reverted have been. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

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

SPA pushing apparent hoax over the last four months

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

---

Nahuel Montenegro (talk · contribs)

This Reddit discussion appears to indicate that the "Josh Blaylock will be appearing in Spider-Man: Far from Home" is not even a rumour but rather something that has appeared on several Wikipedia articles for a combined total of probably several days.

I would discuss it with the editor and ask them to please provide sources, but given that they don't appear to have done anything else on the project, it looks very much like they're only here to push a hoax. Might as well block.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE IP

89.235.92.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• IP in question tried on no less than four occassions to remove long-standing and reliably sourced content from the Aq Qoyunlu page.[36]-[37]-[38]-[39]
• IP in question continued to disregard the reliable sources on the talk page.[40]-[41]-[42]
• IP in question continued to make ungrounded self-formulated claims on the talk page and refrained from presenting any sources that would supposedly cover these claims.[43]-[44]-[45]
• IP in question tried to remove my comments from the talk page.[46] No edit summary/explanation.

Looking at the compelling evidence, I think its safe to say that this IP is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

They use dynamic IP address. This edit on talk page is similar to the reported IP.[47] --Wario-Man (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Another IP, removing references and referenced information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

And all three have the exact same geolocation.[48]-[49]-[50] This requires admin involvement. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the user's IP is dynamically allocated and the edits made by the other IP addresses are all from the same ISP and geolocation. Since the disruption by this IP isn't recent (the IP user's last edit was made here on 19:00, 27 December 2018‎), blocking the IP (or any of the others) would serve no purpose and would likely cause more harm than good if done now. This issue will quickly and easily turn into a "cat and mouse game" given the IPs and their respective CIDR ranges. To help combat this, I've applied semi-protection for one week and pending changes protection to the article for one month. This will be the best way to stop the disruptive editing as opposed to blocking, even if done during the time that disruption is actively occurring and in progress by this user. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Brother Lion

• Brother Lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A day or two ago, I found the article Brother Lion, which was written by User:APaoloL. After examining the article Brother Lion, I noticed it was poorly written and not supported by any sources. A quick look through Google found zero evidence backing any such film project existing (the only links that look remotely relevant are those referring to fan-made parody trailer(s) that are obviously not real). Looking closer at the article, the whole thing looked to be an obvious hoax. For example, the article purported that MGM was producing a prequel to a Disney film (unlikely). The article further states that the film is being directed by someone named Antonio Lombardo and that this is the third film directed by Lombardo; however, there does not appear to any director by that name. Unless I am missing something, the whole thing appeared to be a blatant hoax (and not a very good one at that).

Given all of that, and the fact that the same user wrote another article at about the same time that was quickly deleted as a blatant hoax (see Hellcats Of The Navy 2), I tagged the article for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax; administrator User:Anthony Appleyard deleted it a short time later.

However, after Anthony Appleyard deleted the article, APaoloL left a message on Anthony Appleyard's talk page, in which he stated, "Would You Be So Kind To Bring Back The Brother Lion Article Because I'm Making A Prequel To The 2003 Disney Animated Film Brother Bear If You Bring Back The Article You Have A Option. You Can Come To Auditions For Brother Lion." The message seemed highly unpersuasive, but Anthony Appleyard responded by restoring the article and leaving an affirmative response to APaoloL's message. Further, after restoring the article, Appleyard deactivated the speedy tag using nowiki mark-up, along with the edit summary, "Google finds plenty of references" -- which, as I noted earlier, does not appear to be true.

I'm hoping some fresh eyes can look at this to see if I am missing something in all of this. If I am missing something here and the article was restored correctly, I would kindly ask someone to trout me; however, I really don't see any reason why this article should have been restored. Aoi (青い) (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Aoi: Should I re-delete Brother Lion again? OK, sorry, I may have misjudged the Google search result [51]. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Anthony Appleyard: I am pretty sure this is a hoax. I probably should've gone to your talk page to ask you about this first (and I sincerely apologize that I didn't), but to be honest, I was actually a little worried your account may have been compromised because I found the chain of edits to be kind of weird (specifically when the page was restored after the editor offered you a part in the movie). However, I can see how one could've assumed good faith with the article's author in restoring the article. Thank you very much for responding. Aoi (青い) (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Aoi and Anthony Appleyard: Might not be an intentional hoax. Hollywood (and elsewhere) is filled with people who are "working on projects", most of which never see the light of day, let alone an audience. I added some pointers and a welcome message to their talk page. We'll see what happens. Is/should someone reviewing/review their other contribs, which seem to be about the future as well? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I see they left a similar message on the talkpage of Premeditated Chaos, asking for undeletion and another offer of an audition.--Auric talk 22:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Sadly, I don't think I'm Hollywood material, so I'll have to leave it deleted for now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Socks on the Reference Desks

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

---

Redlink editor User:Doroletho has just admitted to sock pupping on the Reference Desks here. Can an admin block? No checkuser needed since he's quacking so loudly. Thanks. 138.97.116.190 (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

First, please note that there is no such thing as a "redlink editor". No account is required to create a user page. Second, please note that sockpuppetry is not just the creation or use of multiple accounts. It is the creation or use of multiple accounts "to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies". You have provided no evidence that this editor has done any of these things. General Ization ^Talk 13:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I note, however, that a) Doroletho has been involved in a discussion of problematic editing by another editor, and b) this IP, which seems to be intimately familiar with Wikipedia terminology, has apparently not been used for any purpose but to file this report at AN/I. What are the chances that a checkuser would find this IP associated with a registered account that has been the subject of this discussion? General Ization ^Talk 13:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's also not forget the details about WP:SOCK:

"generally expected"

"Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts", " avoid any crossover" which is pretty much my case.

There's Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses Especially due to privacy issues, linking accounts is sometimes not feasible.

Anyway, no account of mine was banned, blocked or even accused of troll-ish behaviour. I have also lost the login data for some accounts, so I just abandoned them. Doroletho (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Attack against whole country by R9tgokunks

This user has been systematically deleting any information about Czech Republic and people from this country. Please take a look at his talk page there has been hundreds of such incidents and I am afraid he is actually fighting against Czech Culture here on wikipedia. --EUStudent6 (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

EUStudent6, are you aware that making unsupported accusations of disruption is considered a personal attack? You need to provide evidence now if you don't want sanctions. There are demonstrably not hundreds of incidents at his talk page, and unless you can provide plenty of evidence for such sweeping accusations, this will be treated as a WP:BOOMERANG. Nyttend (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

PS, the first thing I see from your contributions is this edit. Are you aware that you restored one of the blogs he removed? So far, I'm seeing two problematic edits by you (your unsupported accusations here and the link I've provided) and zero problematic edits by him. The second interaction I've seen between you two was this edit, which was promptly reverted by a third person. Nyttend (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Just look at his talk page. I am not sure if you can access his whole edit history and the articles he tried to delete. But just looking at the his talk page you can see disproportionate amount of Czech stuff he tried to delete (he even tried to use Speedy deletion, which he was thankfully unable to do in many occasions) - Zdeněk Rejdák, Jan Ignác František Vojta, Josef Antonín Plánický, Pavel Horák (choirmaster), Golden Harmony (Zlatá Harmonie), Budeč (Kladno District) and others.. Also, having one bad source is not a valid reason for deleting the fact that Google uses "Czechia" instead of "Czech Republic" in the section "Adoption of Czechia". --EUStudent6 (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend:. I'd like to point out that User:EUStudent6 has been doing this for a while. I warned them about this behavior today, finally, and they went completely the other way. This user has been warned about assuming good faith before, by other users as well.

1. First I removed content I felt did not belong at the respective section at Name of the Czech Republic, including a blog post, which is itself against WP:RS. User:EUStudent6 reverted my edts and called them "vandalism." ([diff: "(partial revert of R9tgokunks vandalism."]) I reverted this edit on the basis that he seemingly re-added the blog and did not assume good faith, also leaving a warning. User:EUStudent6 reverted me again after that, at which point I gave up.

2. It was after this I noticed that User:EUStudent6 left a message at my talk page. The contents of which accused me of having an "Agenda against Czechia" ([diff]), and that I was "systematically deleting source information about the adoption of the word Czechia", bringing up my edit at Name of the Czech Republic. User also claimed that I was "systematically fighting against anything related to Czech Republic."

3. I then proceeded to explain to user how this behavior in all was unacceptable and was against WP:AGF and WP:ETIQUETTE, etc, and how WP:COMMONNAME and many discussions at Talk:Czech Republic speak to how efforts to proliferate "Czechia" are against policy and consensus, thus explaining my "agenda;" and user deleted everything I posted on talk page and called me an abusive wikipedia user.([diff])

I guess the attacks have continued. I was only aware of this section by looking on this page out of happenstance. User needs to be made aware of the consensus surrounding "Czechia". I've had a few administrators work with me on this. Also, I have not warned user for the comments made in their edit summary or this post, which would mean they are on their last chance to stop personally attacking and assuming bad faith before a block. If a proper warning is needed, then perhaps someone else should do it.

Also worth noting is that EUstudents's call into play of my CSD requests on Czech related things was because those articles were created by a long-term abuser of Wikipedia who is banned. (User:Jan Blanicky, and most recently their sock User:Heptapolein) This person is associated with an organization called the "Czechia Initiative," which seeks to force English-language speakers to use "Czechia." (they frequently use the same natonalistic speech that EUstudent does) Not only that but this user had a long history of sockpuppetry, copyvios, personal attacks, WP:COI editing, and disruptive edits. I uncovered a long history of abuse by them, and in that research, I nomainated many non-notable articles for deletion in my attempts to restore the integrity to this site that they damaged. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 02:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• EUStudent6, I can access his whole edit history, but the burden is on you, since I don't see any evidence to support the idea that there have been hundreds of incidents in which R9tgokunks has been systematically deleting any information about Czech Republic and people from this country. I was only aware of this section by looking on this page out of happenstance says R9tgokunks, and from his talk page's history I can see that you gave him no notice that you had brought him here: you've made no edits to his talk page all month, except for this bit of slander. This is despite the big huge orange notice at the top of the edit window: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You're about to stop violating our policies, whether because you decide to stop or because you get stopped. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Nyttend:, for what it is worth, in regards to [this edit that you brought up] reverted by Doremo (talk · contribs), it directly goes against what I have spoken about in regards to the proliferation of "Czechia" and it being against consensus and WP:COMMONNAME. I think it's worth bringing up [this talk page post] showing the seemingly non-policy-minded stance of EUstudent. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 02:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

IP disruption of anti-Qing rebellion pages

An IP user with a variety of addresses in Singapore is reinserting disruptive edits to White Lotus, Red Turban and White Lotus Rebellion. These pages were all semi-protected due to this user's last go-round, but they just waited for protection to expire to start again. IP addresses used:

• 115.135.203.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 60.54.91.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.135.203.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 60.54.91.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 115.135.239.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 60.54.91.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 175.142.24.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Not sure if a couple of range blocks will do the trick or not, but it's annoying to play cleanup on somebody's bizarre attempt to conflate two similarly named historical events and to insert uncited theological detail that hardly passes the smell test. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Link: White Lotus Rebellion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; I've fixed my typo but I appreciate it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added semi protection to these articles for two weeks. I took a look at the ranges for each IP, and they're much too large and with numerous edits to Wikipedia to block them without causing any collateral damage. This will better resolve the issue and without causing hardship on uninvolved editors who are making good changes to the project. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits at MOS:TV

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

---

The talk page of MOS:TV includes the banner {{WikiProject Manual of Style}} which warns that discretionary sanctions are applicable to the page. Four days ago BarbadosKen made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Bulletizing episode summaries at Who Is America?. Only two days later, with no discussion and certainly no consensus, he changed the MOS with the edit summary "Adding a proposal that did not attract opposition in talk page". Naturally I reverted those changes,[52] noting it was only two days and there was no consensus. Today, only two days after that, I was reverted, with the claim "Discussion has now been open for 4 days, and to quote from WP:SILENCE, "Consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement", this despite the fact that the previous reversion is a clear indication of disagreement. After a bit of back and forth on the talk page, and with some harassment on my talk page, I was happy to let the discussion run its course (I have other things on my plate - my wife is in hospital with a poor prognosis) until this post in which BarbadosKen threatens I see that you consider the discussion closed without answering my question as to how long you think a discussion should remain open (I actually did answer his question) I will therefore arbitrarily set the time at 1 week, upon which I will revert your reversion if no opposition is provided in the MOS talk page. At that point, if you revert me again, I will file a complaint against you. The changes to the MOS are not big, but they are changes without discussion or consensus, and the talk page indicates that discretionary sanctions apply so I thought I should bring it here earlier than later, hoping someone could politely inform BarbadosKen of the correct process for changing the MOS. Thank you. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The first uninvolved editor's note there is a good point: it's kind of annoying to revert someone without providing a reason why you disagree with the edit. You reverted the "bold" edit, fine – but now you aren't discussing. Look at this from Ken's point of view: it is impossible to make a change because nobody else cares about the change. Wha? Also if I were you I would not revert that edit again, considering the discretionary sanctions. You're pushing it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I did provide an explanation as to why I reverted, and linked to that above. I said in my edit summary "Only under discussion for two days. More importantly, changes to the MOS need WP:CONSENSUS, not "no opposition". Then while I posted on the MOS talk page today he kept asking questions on my talk page that I was answering on the MOS talk page, which is why I asked him to keep the conversation on the MOS talk page, which he just didn't want to do. I've clearly explained why I reverted, it was procedural, but he doesn't want to accept that. I've said that more discussion by other editors is necessary and that's really all I need to say at this point about the reversion. What more is necessary?

Also if I were you I would not revert that edit again, considering the discretionary sanctions. You're pushing it. - And he's not by pushing edits that have no discussion and no consensus into the Manual of Style? Is that an OK thing to do now? --AussieLegend (✉) 18:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Your point is that BarbadosKen shouldn't have restored his change because your previous edit demonstrated opposition to the change he was making. Why, then, was it appropriate for you to revert him in the first place, since his previous edit demonstrated opposition to the change you were making? Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

BarbadosKen made a change to the MOS that had been the subject of ZERO discussion beyond his propoasl and which certainly had no consensus. It's entirely appropriate to revert such a change.

since his previous edit demonstrated opposition to the change you were making? - This confuses me because I had made no change. He was the one who made the change.[53] The last change I made to the MOS was back in 2017. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Mar4d reported by User:Mountain157

Pages:Frontier Corps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
,Taliban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
,Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mar4d made multiple reversions of properly sourced edits that I made to the articles,Taliban, Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, and Frontier Corps. I want to refrain from reversing the edits out of fear that it can turn into an edit-war. Examples of the user's reverts are:

1. [54] "Rv addition of poorly sourced content back to good version"] (Deciding what he HIMSELF considers "poorly sourced content")
2. [55] "Restore stable version and trimmed off unreliable references"] (Making my additions look bad and forcing his edit through)
3. [56] "Remove unreliable source added by apparent POV account"] (Making unproven accusations which violates WP:NPA)

Can someone look into Mar4d? Mountain157 (talk 10:12 28 December 2018

Mountain157 - There are guidelines and past discussions that have decided exactly which sources are considered reliable and which are not. If you haven't gone through and made sure to understand Wikipedia's guidelines on identifying reliable sources, I highly recommend that you do so. You also did not notify Mar4d of this ANI discussion involving him as required and stated in the notice on the top of this page. I've done this for you. :-)

I'll also add a comment and state for the record that Mar4d is indefinitely topic banned from "all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed", and that he was "warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning" (diff of notice, enforcement log entry). Whether or not these edits are attempting to push that edge is yet to be determined, but Mar4d should know by know that extreme caution and care should be taken regarding edits in these topics. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Taliban and Frontier Corps certainly skirt the topic ban. It is well known and documented in the article that Pakistani intelligence agencies have supported the Taliban for decades while India has opposed the Taliban vigorously. Similarly, the Frontier Corps is a Pakistani paramilitary group operating on its frontier with Afghanistan and is functionally equivalent to the paramilitary Pakistan Rangers who operate on the Eastern frontier with India. If this editor continues to test the boundaries of their topic ban, then perhaps it is time to expand the topic ban to "all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan", broadly construed. If necessary to prevent disruption, we could add Islam and Hinduism to the topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328 - Thank for for commenting here. I'm no expert or professional in regards to these topics or conflicts between India and Pakistan, so this was extremely helpful. I appreciate it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Removals made on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Frontier Corps are almost same. I am mostly concerned this edit which involved contributions by three editors.[57][58][59] At the time when Mar4d reverted this, it was neutrally written and used TOLOnews as a source which is not an unreliable source. Mar4d's removal of the edit and explanation: "Remove unreliable source added by apparent POV account" shows poor knowledge of WP:RS and WP:PA, the same behavior that resulted in topic ban on him from conflicts between India and Pakistan.[60]
  As for the testing of boundaries of topic ban, I would note that Mar4d made this edit this month, where he added "Kashmir=yes" into Wikiproject and since Kashmir is the major concern in "conflict between India and Pakistan" Mar4d could avoid this edit. Another example would be these edits[61][62] because Pakistan continues to allege India of being involved in Insurgency in Balochistan by funding the Balochistan militants. Sections on Balochistan Liberation Army#Foreign involvement and Insurgency in Balochistan#India describes this and India has at least morally supported the Balochistan fighters. I would also remind that Mar4d was already blocked once for topic ban violation and unblocked after he promised not to violate the topic ban again.[63]
  The edit on Al-Qaeda is also concerning where Mar4d claims that he thoroughly checked the whole edit. Here Mar4d removed the part "by the Pakistani ISI to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan and later on against India" and this part concerns "conflict between India and Pakistan". The added source from NYTimes was even more explicit with saying "or against India in the disputed territory of Kashmir". Lorstaking (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• I have reverted other contributions from User:Mountain157 before User:Mar4d did such as [64] [65] [66] [67] and I have explained it vigorously here Talk:Haqqani_network#Original_Research Talk:2017–18_North_Korea_crisis#Original_Research Talk:Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015–present)#Original_Research. I've assumed good faith since the OP is a new user and I have invested time and explained to him Wikipedia policies extensively in his talk page and endured him accusing me of being "sponsored by Pakistan" etc etc.. until someone came along, decided it wasn't worth it, and reported him for edit warring Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive381#User:Mountain157_reported_by_User:TheTimesAreAChanging_(Result:_48h) and got him blocked for 48 hours for gaming the system. I urged him to make amendments instead of confirming controversial claims and to discuss before reverting. To be fair, he did stop edit warring on those articles. However, I am concerned of the POV style editing the OP is using mainly relying on WP:OR and WP:FRINGE to make "sourced" contributions. He has also opened a sockpuppet investigation on an IP address who was also reverting some of his controversial changes Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/5.36.68.92. This seems to me like revenge directed moves and amounts to OP shooting himself in the foot. Just my two cents. I am not interested in taking part of this ANI so please ping me for any questions, will be happy to answer. Wikiemirati (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Wikiemirati: You are absolutely right about Mountain157, who engaged in POV editing but has stopped a bit since the block. I don't think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/5.36.68.92 was a revenge move because it concerns a block evader. You should see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhishek9779/Archive and even Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hassan Guy/Archive. Same IPs (5.36..) have been also reported there and were range blocked for socking in this same subject. Mountain157 don't know this because he is a newbie. I have also commented there. Lorstaking (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense, I'm not familiar with those topics so I don't know who edit them or who was blocked or w/e. I don't know if OP knows that or not, but he did open an ANI on someone who reverted him Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive999#User:Anonymous17771 who turned out to be Abhishek9779 sock (from a separate investigation though). Worth to mention too, that he opened an ANI after the sock opened his own ANI on OP Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive999#User:_Mountain157 but got banned before he could take it anywhere. The sock is banned like he should be. However, all of this screams to me like someone who's revenge targeting people who reverted him. I am not familiar with those users or the user mentioned here, but I can't help but also scrutinize OP edits and behavior. WP:BOOMERANG. Wikiemirati (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

"Revenge targeting people"? I actually can't help but notice alot of double standards coming from you. In fact you were targeting me at first and now you are coming on here and trying to make me look like the "bad one". I simply reported the sock and Mar4d because they happened to be engaging in behavior that defines edit-warring.-Mountain157 talk 3:50 29 December 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

He has just opened an edit warring notice against me now [68]. While I acknowledge everyone's right to an opinion, I don't think this behavior is very appropriate and amounts to outright battle behavior WP:BATTLE. Wikiemirati (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Hello all. I'll try to keep this in summary form. I was first notified of the issues regarding Mountain157's edits only after someone posted a message on my talk drawing attention, and I'll basically second what Wikiemirati and several other users [69] [70] (TheTimesAreAChanging etc.) who have posted on Mountain157's talk and elsewhere have recently said about their edits. I am convinced this user is not here to build the encyclopedia, and the sourcing issues that I found are unfortunately the tip of the iceberg. Let's leave the sources for a minute. As per the admin Black Kite who [71] blocked Mountain157 for disruptive editing only days after he created his account, it is both alarming and concerning when the user isn't able to distinguish between what reliable, mainstream academic sources are, and what opinion editorials, and speculation pieces are, to add highly contentious claims as facts across not a few but dozens of articles and sections.

I don't think this user has developed quite a grasp yet, or shown intent to develop an understanding ever since the endless notices left by others on their talk page, about core guidelines like WP:NPOV and WP:RS, and I can back my statement with convincing evidence. I hope they will read this. This is one of many examples. Now on to the Frontier Corps page, Mountain157 made their first edit on 16 December [72]; here, he first added a section "support for terrorism", which is an issue itself since the text he adds immediately below it is reporting about an allegation being made; secondly, the text added by the user conclusively states the FC is involved in "backing ISIS" which is akin to stating in fact whilst reporting that same allegation, and thirdly, their choice of source is none other than an Afghan government official. The matter doesn't end here as the user went on to claim that the FC is involved militarily in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present), on the basis of this single source, which is itself problematic given in Wikipedia's language, "exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources". I did not see that being fulfilled in any of his edits, to be frank.

On the Taliban page, Mountain157 added Pakistan in the "ally" section, again improperly sourced to a news article reporting an Afghan official's statements. Again, the user needs to display a more prominent understanding of how to source claims which require impartial, reliable references. On to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article, the user made several additions again improperly sourced to primary references and opinion pieces, adding multiple countries as "allies" without verification, which had to be reverted by another user here. And again, the same glaring issues with sourcing are there i.e. primary refs, statements by government officials, editorial pieces [73], and improper attribution to allegations. I'm happy to answer further questions, but that being said I will certainly like to draw attention to the issues with the edits concerned, as I believe the user needs to show more understanding of some core guidelines.

Finally, Lorstaking's involvement here and defense of Mountain157's edits is also a cause for concern and needs to be reviewed impartially; he for instance misleadingly claims that Mountain157 "stopped a bit" with regard to their "POV editing" since the block, but his only edits ever since the block got lifted have been this, this fresh ANI section, or an SPI. All this from an apparent "newbie" who we are all supposed to believe first edited Wikipedia on 13 December 2018. Kind regards, Mar4d (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• I will repeat what multiple other editors have been saying. You are engaging in talking about the actions of others.There are serious concerns by the other editors about you making POV edits on topics that have to do with India and Pakistan. In fact you yourself are banned indefinetely from, "all edits and pages related to India and Pakistan, broadly construed". Oh and by the way multiple sources from ToloNews document Pakistani Frontier Corps forces backing ISIS in Afghanistan. Same thing goes for the Taliban, numerous sources for decades have pointed to Pakistani support. Lastly I find it very mean spirited for you to go after Lorstaking for simply defending me which any editor on Wikipedia has the right to do.-Mountain157 (talk) 10:40 29 December 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Mar4d's explanations only discuss actions of others including the OP who is currently not engaging in any blockable offense. Mar4d has ignored the concerns about his edits raised by at least 4 editors, 2 of them are uninvolved admins. The edit on Al-Qaeda was obviously a topic ban violation as evidenced above. Since Mar4d didn't even cared enough about addressing these obvious topic ban violation/s, I think we certainly have no option except to "expand the topic ban to "all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan", broadly construed", like Cullen238 has suggested here. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about Mar4d's edits, his TBAN, or any violations and I am not heavily involved in Pakistan-India topics nor do I know him, but I have made a similar, yet not identical, revert in Al Qaeda page [74] as well as two other users [75] and [76] who all reverted the OP. This is just my opinion. As it seems I am no longer a neutral party to this discussion (Thanks to OP opening another notice board against me). I think it's best I leave this ANI discussion. Wikiemirati (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

People are concerned that why Mar4d is reverting Mountain157 in these topic areas when he is already aware that these reverts constitute violation of his present topic ban. His failure to address these concerns pretty much speaks it all. I know that there must be issues with the editing of Mountain157 and there are no objections to your reverts, but given he is a newbie some rope is essentially warranted. Where as if we evaluate Mar4d's conduct, then I would also support expansion of topic ban to cover the whole WP:ARBIPA(Afghanistan, India, Pakistan). Orientls (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Mountain157 opened a edit warring claim against Wikiemirati; I pointed out to them that it might be best to withdraw it given that they had reverted more times than the editor they were reporting; they have done so. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:1:f33e:4120:94c6:3080:9f9c:bf15 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

---

This IP user just made edits on Fox-owned stations and other articles that refer to 21st Century Fox as just Fox. These edits may not be sourced (no recent news stories), and the merger hasn't even closed yet (Disney still have to sell the RSNs)! Should all these edits be reverted? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The deal has not yet gone through so the IP is jumping the gun, so to speak. Some editors think they possess a crystal ball. Feel to revert but please be aware that this noticeboard is not for discussing routine content disputes, Mvcg66b3r. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Topic ban violations by Spasage and JogiAsad

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

---

Both Spasage[77] and JogiAsad[78] are topic banned for an indefinite period from AfD or any deletion discussions.

Spasage violated this topic ban just now,[79] and same with JogiAsad.[80][81]

I thought of asking them to self-revert but saw that they have been already warned enough times for their violations before.[82][83] JogiAsad in fact appealed this topic ban 2 or 3 times and failed.[84][85] Orientls (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I have given both editors one week blocks for violating their topic bans. Thank you for presenting the evidence concisely and persuasively, Orientls. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Film Fan and site-ban evasion

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

---

Hi. In August, Film Fan was site banned for continued disruptive behaviour. This is all linked to either edit wars on film posters, or edit wars on page moves. Yesterday, the IP 213.205.242.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) popped-up to start a page move discussion on a semi-obscure Mexican film, which FF had previously edited. Editing the article with this edit summary mirrors previous edits by FF, such as this, and their move request cites WP:COMMONNAME, again similar to an edit by FF, also on a semi-obscure Mexican film.

I also fail to believe that a new user would suddenly appear and know about the RM process and one of WP's policies about naming articles. I also believe that the IP 90.249.17.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same editor, as that was editing in a similar niche area, and was blocked for 7 days (CheckUser block) by @NinjaRobotPirate:. I would take this to SPI, but that has quite a big backlog, and FF does have form for socking, so hopefully this can be looked at sooner rather than later. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Aquaelfin

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

Aquaelfin was initially reported at AIV by Cabayi. The request was declined by Ad Orientem, suggesting a report here. I figured I would do the paperwork. This user has a long history of problematic edits.

• They were reported for removing a CSD template on an article they created.
• This was after a final warning for vandalising WP:FOOTYN, in an attempt to make the articles they were creating notable.
• Their talk page shows an extremely long history of orphaned non-free images, speedy deletion nominations, and AfD nominations.
• SveinFalk warned them for vandalism in 2016
• Vanjagenije warned them for removing CSD templates in August 2017

This disruption has been ongoing for an extremely long time, but has never resulted in a block. Something needs doing. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Note the poor english on Aquaelfin's user page, along with the fact that they describe themselves as a "Thai football team updater" makes me suspect that there is a language barrier. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Will add that the English is really poor at many articles he has created, and not even understandable at some parts. He also adds red or pink colour in Season by season records when teams don`t enter the national cups by their own decision. No colours should be added, and the colour red is only to be used when teams are banned/suspended, so him adding red colour to "not enter" make it seems different. Due to the high number of articles he edits/creates, it`s not possible for anyone to "fix" all his poor English text and more. SveinFalk (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Aquaelfin's most intractable problem is their flaky grasp of English, and a tendency to hit undo as a first reponse when challenged.

I challenged Aquaelfin in October over their use of Thai on enwiki - User talk:Aquaelfin#English please - and got a reply on my talk page - User talk:Cabayi/Archive 5#I talk Gunkiet only. It's not public. Aquaelfin has, so far as I can see, used only English on enwiki since then.

Recently Aquaelfin has created some problematic articles about low profile Thai footabll teams.

In the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangkhuntien F.C. Aquaelfin noted that WP:FOOTYN was a factor and so decided to "fix" the policy in their favour FOOTYN's history. Again, in the face of my final revert edit summary "Discuss first, stop reverting", and a {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning Special:Diff/875691978 on Aquaelfin's talk page (which Aquaelfin immediately removed Special:Diff/875693447), Aquaelfin has been discussing the policy on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability#Old definition of WP:FOOTYN is don't true with Number 57, FkpCascais, and SportingFlyer. I'd like to hear their opinion of the fruitfulness of that discussion.

Aquaelfin also created Bangkok City F.C. which I tagged A7, and Aquaelfin removed the CSD 1, 2, 3 times. After Aquaelfin received the {{uw-3rr}} Special:Diff/875703246, (which Aquaelfin again immediately removed Special:Diff/875704777). We'll never know how that would have progressed as SkyGazer 512 declined the A7 and Onel5969 (who also has a history with Aquaelfin [86]) took it to AFD.

Aquaelfin has language issues (an inability to accurately distinguish amateur/professional, national/regional, and cup/league) and a behavioural problem in that the first reponse to any obstacle is to revert/undo, whether it's a CSD on an article or an unwelcome message on Aq's talk page, rather than to understand it and deal with the underlying problem.

When I raised the AIV I was looking for a short-term block to show that the community has expectations which can't be brushed under the carpet. In the light of Bellezzasolo's ANI report it becomes a wider issue of WP:CIR and Aq's unwillingness to admit any failure in their understanding of English, but there is a willingness to understand and comply when there is absolutely no other alternative. Cabayi (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't really ever get involved with ANI discussions so I don't think I'm going to comment on the actual user, but since you pinged me here I will say that I think I was correct to remove the CSD template. There are decent sources in the article and the club has played in the 2018 Thailand Amateur League Bangkok Metropolitan Region; both are almost certainly claims of significance. I'm by no means saying the article is notable, but I'm just saying that it did not fit the A7 criterion.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Block mistake

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

---

I am here requesting for an urgent unblock of my account, 627544editor. A CheckUser mistakenly identified it as a sock and blocked it, but I only have one account and never vandalized. 183.192.63.128 (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

627544editor (talk · contribs) to save a little time. MarnetteD|Talk 01:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean? I am confused. 183.192.63.128 (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The template that MarnetteD added makes it easier for people to access your contributions page, talk page, etc. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, you are considering to unblock the account? And you have to look at my contribs to decide? 183.192.63.128 (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't have access to checkuser data, which I'd need to comment on the block. The fact that huge chunks of User:627544editor were oversighted doesn't leave me very optimistic about an unblock. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Mwright1469

It appears to me that User:Mwright1469 is a sock, given their editing history:

• Account created 13 April 2013 [87]
• 3 edits on that date, including one [88] to PERMISSION requesting to have the account confirmed;
• editor was told simply to edit to get it confirmed [89]
• no more edits were made until 8 December 2018, when they added text to their user page
• then today, 29 December, a spate of 33 edits to controversial subjects (Turning Point USA, Planned Parenthood, Ben Carson) in which have attempted to use primary sources to skew articles to be more positive about right-wing subjects, and mor enegative about left-wing subjects
• editor's edit summaries [90], and talk page comment [91] shows strong familiarity of Wikipedia policies (although they're not actually following them)

This is a classic pattern for a sleeper sock, created and put aside for a useful time. Yes, I know that SPI is "that way", but you cannot file an SPI report without naming a master, and I have no master to name, only the obvious signs of sockpuppet editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ken for that introduction. Unfortunately medical education tends be lengthy but I'm happy I have time now on my holidays to contribute to Wikipedia. I can see you have taken this quite personally. As I said before, please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the appropriate use of primary sources. It only took me a few youtube videos to get a hang of it.

It's important to replacing a secondary source that misquotes an organization's mission statement, with a primary source. I see you have been following my edits. I did not know Ben Carson's family was a right-wing subject or that abortion market share mathematics were a left-wing subject. Please kindly refrain from personal insults.

Mwright1469 (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

As you well know, ANI does not deal with content disputes, that happens on article talk pages. Your edits on Turning Point USA and Planned Parenthood have been disputed, so -- as you are aware -- you need to get a consensus for those edits on those article's talk pages.

In the meantime, ANI does deal with behavioral issues, which, in this case, is the high probability that you are a sock of a blocked or banned editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken So it took me a little googling to find what a "sock" is. I'm sorry you're taking this a little personally Ken. If you are not willing to have a constructive discussion on the talk pages and would rather speak in threats and personal insults, admin may have to deal with you on this. Mwright1469 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

So ... you're intimately familiar with Wikipedia's policy on primary and secondary sources, on your fourth edit you know to go to WP:PERMISSIONS to try to get confirmed in advance, but you've never heard of a "sock", you had to Google it?

Yeah, I totally believe that, it makes complete sense.

Hey, dude, you've overplayed your part. Many of those reading this thread who had been thinking "BMK really should wait until he has enough evidence to file an SPI" just changed their minds to "No way is this person such a clueless newbie that they don't know what a sockpuppet is."

Just a matter of time, Mike. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, another good indication that your only purpose here is to push a POV: you just attempted to pass off Live Action - an anti-abortion site - as a reliable secondary source, [92] citing this polemic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Another data point: Clueless newbie knows what the BLP policy is. [93]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Note: I restored the two comments above, which were deleted by Mwright1469 in this edit. He then added the comment below. I assume he will say this was an unfortunate error of some kind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

So this all started with me editing interesting medical genetics pages and editing Dr. Carson's page, and then it quickly evolved to me meeting some very interesting people. Now I'm learning new acronyms, heck of a learning curve. I didn't know people edited wikipedia articles as a full time job. -Mwright1469 (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

My friend, if you want to play Sherlock, be my guest. As for your acronyms, BLP in my world is blood pressure, SPI is what the MRI techs can't ever get right, and ANI is what the lab uses to know if you have gonnorhoeae ;) have fun wasting your time. I think we're done here. -Mwright1469 (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

My prognosis is that Mwright1469 is a gonnor. EEng 08:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Until his next sock appears. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:BostonBowTie

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

---

• BostonBowTie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ImperfectlyInformed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• United States administrative law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My apologies if I'm skipping steps here - in over a decade of Wikipedia editing, it's been years since I escalated a civility complaint. But this user is quite aggressive and downright mean even by the standards of Wikipedia. I formally warned the user a few days ago [94], after previously pointing them to WP:CONDUCT back in April. They responded with "Contempt has to be earned ... Your actions (at Talk:United States administrative law) earned it" and calling me a liar on the basis that a "false statement on a fully-informed basis supports in inference of intentional lying". Not particularly interested in feeding that. More below.

I first encountered BostonBowTie (talk · contribs) around April 2018 - their 4th edit ever called me a hyper-pedantic ignoramus. (Most likely they were the IP for the earlier edit, calling me a "shit-for-brains [vandal]".) I pointed WP:CONDUCT to them at Talk:United_States_administrative_law#Hortatory,_instructional,_and_nonbinding. I let it lie for around 8 months; when I came back in December a few days ago, their first response in above discussion included statements such as "[your edits] ... [prove] the further suspicion that you’re an intentional troll", with edit summaries like [95] (calling me a "barbarian vandal"). Another long-term editor who barely dipped their toes into the discussion was called (on a completely unfounded basis) various names such as "ignoramus", "nincompoop", "nitwit", with "excrescence" edits [96]. And a quick look at their other edits shows that it doesn't just seem to be us - the user is also damaging the maturity of discussions at Common law, where they called repeatedly insisted on calling another long-term editor a troll even after being asked to stop [97].

I can take quite a bit of abuse, but it does discourage me. Moreover, I'm concerned by the long-term effects and downward spiral.

The underlying content dispute centers around how to best describe the nuance of agency guidance (often described as "nonbinding" but also "hortatory", recommended or requested) versus formal, legally binding rules. II | (t - c) 04:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Instead of hortatory it might be more encyclopedic to say bordello or house of ill repute. EEng 09:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed doesn’t like the word “hortatory.” Courts do. The sentence in the article is “Many courts have characterized interpretative rules as only ‘hortatory’.” ImperfectlyInformed doesn’t like the word, so he changed the quote. I’ve asked him to give a good faith explanation; none has been given. ImperfectlyInformed commented that use of the word wasn’t clear to him. OK, fair enough. But it’s still the language that the courts use, and changing the quote is out of bounds. Nonetheless, the initial question was a fair one. If someone doesn't understand, I can work with that and explain more. So I added a lot of text to explain exactly what that means. Many federal rules are not on a black-white binding-nonbinding dichotomy. For one large class of rules, it’s a spectrum through shades of grey, that varies with context. There are now over 1000 words, including United_States_administrative_law#Consequence_of_the_Interpretative_Exemption explaining the sense in which certain rules are binding, when they’re not, what degree of effect that agencies can rely on, what the public may expect of the agency. At ImperfectlyInformed's prompting, the article now explains exactly what all the rights are, and what the courts’ choice of the word “hortatory” means.

I spent enough time in academia that I’m happy to teach. I’ve invited ImperfectlyInformed to ask questions that reflect that he read the existing text first, and thought about it, and you bet, I’ll see what I can do to make things clearer for nonspecialists. I’ve spent a good deal of effort trying to meet ImperfectlyInformed’s questions (and, for that matter, White_Whirlwind’s).

Instead of that, he comes back and edits again, to change a direct, correct quote to an incorrect quote.[98]. ImperfectlyInformed deletes stuff just because he doesn’t understand it--normal Wikiettiquette is to add a “clarify” tag or ask a question on the Talk page. ImperfectlyInformed's conversation on the Talk page suggests that he's not reading, or at least not reading carefully enough to engage with the facts that are under his nose.

ImperfectlyInformed' writes “I still think that the article … does not communicate at all the ‘shades of grey’ which you point towards.” That’s OK. Lack of understanding doesn’t make a bad person. Deleting parts of an article, with the explanation of personal lack of understanding--that’s a bit more problematic.

ImperfectlyInformed mentions of my conversation with White_Whirlwind, but neglects a number of key facts. ImperfectlyInformed overlooks the key sentences in my conversation with WhiteWhirlwind. Near the top of the conversation:

You mention “ad hominem“ attacks. Please look again. ... Every declarative sentence involving “you” refers to an objective act that you took. Those acts could lead a reasonable person to question your cognitive abilities, but that’s entirely your inference from your acts, not an ad hominem attack from me.

I think the full transcript is clear. I fully and fairly engaged with WhiteWhirlwind at each stage. WhiteWhirlwind misquoted, evaded, made up rules on the fly, complained about lack of verifiable sources when the text in question is a near-word-for-word direct quote from an article that has been cited by the Supreme Court and fully footnoted, etc. It is only after a long conversation, multiple edits to try to meet WhiteWhirlwind’s concerns and getting nowhere, that we get to this:

Of course I started with the assumption of good faith. But assumptions can be rebutted by evidence.

Your own acts have pretty conclusively rebutted. I am now ready to state that inference in a simple declarative sentence. You’re a troll, and the problems you complain of arise out of your own carelessness.

So yes, I called White_Whirlwind a troll. I think the transcript is clear enough to establish that that's a more-than-fair inference.

I did not call ImperfectlyInformed a liar. I wrote exactly what I wrote—I pointed out that ImperfectlyInformed had changed a direct quote from a cited source. Before ImperfectlyInformed edited, the sentence was a literal, correct quote, that gets several dozen hits in the case law databases. ImperfectlyInformed changed the quote because he objects to the word “hortatory,” to a statment that has exactly zero support (at least no support in any database I can search--I looked in the two free ones, and didn't go to the two pay databases.) It was a point that had been discussed at some length. It was the same misquotation that had been edited in multiple times (to be fair, not all by ImperfectlyInformed), and that I had changed back multiple times. The direct quote is footnoted to one of dozens of possible sources, and I even added a block quote from one of the cases that explains it well. ImperfectlyInformded offers no "reliable source" support. After ImperfectlyInformed edited in the error again, I wrote “a false statement on a fully-informed basis supports in inference of intentional lying.” There is no declarative sentence calling ImperfectlyInformed a liar. There is a sentence that presents ImperfectlyInformed with his own action, and suggests that his own pattern of action might create an inference he wishes to avoid by changing behavior in the future.

ImperfectlyInformed writes “it does discourage me.” The right balance is the one I’ve encouraged: read carefully (both the article text, and the footnoted sources), think, ask questions, don’t change quotes. Look at the footnoted sources—perhaps they’d clarify something. But especially after an extended Talk page discussion, don’t edit without understanding. Don’t alter quotes. I don't know how changing quotes is handled in the rest of the Wikipedia world, but in my world, changing a direct quote is lying, and gets real penalties, and I won't accept it. Don't edit when the only explanation ImperfectlyInformed can offer is personal ignorance--questions, yes. Deletes, no. If ImperfectlyInformed raises a question, and the other person (me in this case) makes edits to try to meet those questions, then either take "yes" for an answer, or explain exactly what the remaining problem is (with respect to the new text, not the old) with enough precision to allow further progress. Further Talk discussion that reflect oblivion to responsive edits, to the cited sources, and to previous Talk discussion is, at best, unhelpful. If I’ve discouraged ImperfectlyInformed from acting in haste to disrupt a consensus and an article that reflects some attention from an expert, then I submit that that’s good. On the other hand, if ImperfectlyInformed wants to continue to participate to ask questions and identify things that could be explained better, and do so nondestructively, I’d welcome that.

BostonBowTie (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know who's right on the content issue but we certainly have here a stark reminder of why people think of lawyers as overbearing assholes. EEng 14:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

EEng, thanks for providing a contrast. At least at the high end, law is a culture of precision and correctness. If you know any assembly language programmers who know their stuff will be used in fly-by-wire in passenger airplanes, it's a similar mindset. It's not the right mindset for every field, but it's the only one that works in the law. BostonBowTie (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

<rolls eyes> I hope you know more about law than you do about computing or avionics. EEng 15:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I probably do. I lectured at MIT on computing in the 1990s. Later I changed careers. Earlier this year I lectured in D.C., in a program where just before me was a panel of heads of several agencies, and I was followed by Senator Hatch and Chief Justice Roberts. So I guess I'm more current on law, but at the top of both. Thank you for asking. BostonBowTie (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Lectured at MIT on computing. Uh huh. Let's see... Please answer:

• (1) Immediately as you leave MIT for Harvard there's a sign that famously provides an unintentional pun when seen from just the right vantage. What is it?
• (2) According to tradition, one MIT president had some famous last words. What were they?
• (3) What MIT library makes you go around in circles?
• (4) What was kept overnight in a car trunk during the Apollo 13 emergency?

Since your lecturing days are somewhat distant, I'll take 3 out of 4. EEng 16:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

"[T]he only one that works in the law"? You either practice before very different courts or amidst very different lawyers than I do. Or you are [shudder] a legal academic! Either way, I would remind you that brevity is the soul of wit and that if you could simply be slightly more temperate with the same underlying substance, it would go a long way. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

What that says to me is "not a practitioner." Have a nice day, and just try to remember that ipse dixit is no way to write an encyclopedia. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

No, pure practitioner (though old enough now that I get to teach a bit, publish a lot of articles). A lot of my deals were co-sounsel with or against Cravath, Sullivan & Cromwell, Simpson Thacher, WilmerHale, etc. Careful of jumping to conclusions! BostonBowTie (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Have a happy New Year! Dumuzid (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You too. May God bless us all, every one. BostonBowTie (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

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

2601:82:202:CB17::/64

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

---

• 2601:82:202:CB17::/64 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )

Dynamic IP with lots of edits to film-related articles, largely for kids, mostly on Saturdays. Not outright vandalism, but largely unreferenced edits with no edit summaries or communication in response to many warnings. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked six months. It's block evasion by Special:Contributions/73.33.121.170 and Special:Contributions/2601:81:c401:5307::/64. Same geolocation, same edits (1 and 2, 1 and 2). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

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