Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EEng (talk | contribs) at 05:05, 6 June 2018 (→‎Mass deletion of references: self-oiling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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

    User with a severe competence in English problem and repeated false sock allegations.

    ZH8000 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has a major problem editing in English. There was a problem at Vignette (road tax) where ZH8000 misunderstood a contribution as claiming that the annual cost of the Swiss vignette was the most expensive in Europe and not the cost of transiting the country in spite of clearly stating the latter. His response on the talk page betrayed this. Making no further discussion and that his edit summaries continued to reference the original edit with eight reverts, this interpretation either did not change, or he never read the talk page or what he was reverting ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7])

    There was consensus on the talk page which he appears to have accepted after a warning. This aspect can be regarded as settled.

    However, an underlying problem has been revealed in that ZH8000 clearly does not have the necessary competence in English to edit the English Wikipedia. He has self identified as a native German speaking Swiss. I have not been here that long and I don't know how this would normally be handled so please bear with me and forgive me if this is the wrong place.

    The article on Gun laws in Switzerland has become a mixture of good English, pidgin English and the plain unintelligible. Consider this nugget:

    [Of ammunition that cannot be sold]

    Ammunition with one or more floors to the release of substances which damage the health of people in the long run

    I doubt many English speakers have the knowledge on such a specialist subject to unravel that or the other unintelligible English.

    There are several others, but I'm trying to be brief. Just recently, this was added to AC power plugs and sockets

    [Of disadvantages with multi-standard sockets]

    Using appliances which require earthing, but socket does either not provide it, or the socket's earthing connects not with the one by the plug.

    He subsequently provided a rewrite but it wasn't any more intelligible. His reaction is that anyone is free to improve the contribution but it is rather difficult if you can't figure out what it was trying to say in the first place. He has reverted a request for clarification here

    It is worth adding that ZH8000 has a history (and three blocks) for battleground edit warring with others, mostly over his lack of understanding of how to present ideas in English.

    Having made a false edit warring and socking allegation at WP:ANEW (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368#User:86.153.135.111 reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: Semi) (More than one user pointed out that there are three groups of dynamic IP addresses - the IP addresses are separated by at least three continents and he was at 5RR when he made it - no one else had exceeded 2RR), he has continued to repeat the allegation here. He clearly still does not understand the concept of dynamic IP addresses. This shows that ZH8000 is quick to quote policies to everyone else, but refuses to abide by them himself ([8], [9], [10], [11] - all within 3 1/2 hours. (I assume removal of gibberish and restoring removed maintenance tags is reverting vandalism).

    I know the last bit should probably be at WP:ANEW but I wouldn't want to be accused of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. 81.156.46.74 (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Uhm. ZH8000 isn't a vandalizing editor. (Wikipedia:Vandalism). How do you know that his previous blocks are "mostly over his lack of understanding of how to present ideas in English"? --Miaow 16:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    By following his edit history. Also a look at the posts that ZH8000 has deleted from his talk page is highly revealing (he always deletes negative posts). 81.156.46.74 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If the only problem is that the user writes in somewhat confusing sentences (I wouldn't call these examples illegible, I'm not an expert in these subjects and I can mostly parse their meaning) but they otherwise contribute productively, the civil thing to do would be to just copyedit their contribs. I know we're not about to appoint someone to follow them around and clean up after them, but perhaps we can advise them to suggest changes on talk pages instead? Of course edit warring is intolerable, but if you're editing in good faith and presume that there's nothing wrong with your contributions, having several editors gang up on you is unpleasant. And then again if it's just a matter of them not wanting to collaborate then they'll be on their way out, but I don't think that's the case here. Not yet, anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in agreement with Ivanvector. --Miaow 16:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Well, it's one thing to write badly and quite another to write badly and refuse to acknowledge it. My stance is: Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, there is no automatic right to participating in this online project, and if someone's editing efforts force others to do devote disproportional amount of time to correcting them while the editor refuses to acknowledge his weaknesses, then I see no point of continued participation of such an editor in the project. GF is not all. — kashmīrī TALK 18:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, Google Translate should not be writing articles on en-Wiki. — kashmīrī TALK 18:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s interesting that you say that, because I spoke a friend of mine who is a translator for the EU. He is not a great fan of machine translations. Given that ZH8000 generally has a passable proficiency in English, he states that the English being posted is fairly consistent with that generated by machine translations such as Google translate. TheVicarsCat (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    His edits are polarizing. He may have potential if he stays in contact with current events. EEng 19:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ...I propose to topic ban EENG from any more puns today, broadly construed. --Tarage (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He may resist such a measure, regardless of capacitance. Jip Orlando (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]
    Watt? Ohmy! EEng 21:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]
    Let's stop this pun thread before it Hertz. Natureium (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's relative, but we do need a quantum of gravity in this thread. Kleuske (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, we should to try to keep the thread readable for the Swiss gentleman. — kashmīrī TALK 23:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

    Putting the joking aside. There is a more serious issue here. I have little to add to the language issue apart from to observe that it wholly unreasonable for an editor to expect others to clear up after them.

    However: the last part of the complaint should be taken seriously. A criticism from an admin (EdJohnston) was made about ZH8000 posting 3RR notices on user’s talk pages when he himself is deliberately flouting the rules. ZH8000 should receive a short block for the 4RR violation in under 4 hours (let alone 24 hours) as a timely reminder that the rules apply to him as well. In addition the IP should also receive the same block as he also made 4 reverts in much the same time period WP:BOOMERANG. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    My mistake. It seems ‘my boomerang won,t come back’. I just saw 4 edits from the IP and wrongly assumed they were reverts. On looking more thoroughly, only three were reverts. One just added a clarify tag to the poor English, though the reason could have be better phrased (though it does appear to be apposite). TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. After the IP was reversed, I don't see any problems there. --Miaow 18:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're not going to CIR block over the language issue. It's just not going to happen.
    • The reported edit war at AC power plugs and sockets is stale. Please report future edit warring to WP:AN3.
    • I will warn ZH8000 against making further unsubstantiated accusations.
    • Is there anything else other than what I've mentioned above that requires an immediate response? If not, please re-report if and when that happens. Swarm ♠ 23:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass deletion of references

    Angelopedia is a corporate-run website that provides English-language news reports on pageants around the world. This is helpful for sourcing basic information where the in-country sources have been written in non-English languages, especially where the original sources are written in non-Roman script. A question about the site's reliability has been raised at the Reliable Sources noticeboard (here). A discussion there is on-going.

    The original poster at the noticeboard was Jytdog. Although the discussion is on-going, Jytdog has apparently decided on its outcome and has already begun a mass deletion of references to the website. After doing a few dozen deletions, they went back to the noticeboard to call on other editors to do the same (diff}.

    I registered my objection to these mass deletions at Jytdog's Talk page (here). The response suggests that Jytdog has no intention of undoing their mass deletion of sources.

    The deletion of these references is controversial and, so far, has been done in the absence of any evidence-based rationale. If these deletions are truly to take place, they should be done pursuant to a formal Request for Comments that is closed by an uninvolved administrator. In the meantime, I am here asking for a restoration of the status quo (i.e., a restoration of all of the references deleted by Jytdog, as well as any other deletions that might have been done by editors who heeded Jytdog's call at the Reliable Sources noticeboard). NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTIFICATION OF THIS REPORT given here NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to be enough consensus on the RS/N board that the site is not reliable; the single argument for it (which NewYorkActuary gave) doesn't show how it meets RS's requirements, given that we know some content on the site is user-generated, just not which content or how much. I have spotchecked a few of the references removed by Jytdog and see an immediate problem in addition: if the site , as claimed, was translating foreign articles to English, the links I spotchecked show no sign of the original article that was sourced from that I can find, so this itself fails WP:V and potentially could be a copyright violation. (If the links were there, then my suggestion would have been to replace the Angelopedia links with these foreign-language ones, which are likely to have been better than Angelopedia). So Jytdog's work to replace the references with CNs based on the impression from RS/N discussion (opened long enough to gain input) is completely legit and not actionable.
    Furthermore, it's not too hard to find suitable replacements, for example, for this removal, an early hit on Google was this article [12]. So there might be some effort needed to correct these, but we can do that without Angelopedia. --Masem (t) 00:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Thanks for the prompt response. I'm reluctant to go into too much detail here, because I recognize that the substantive discussion should be taking place on the RS noticeboard (and not here). But I'll briefly address two items in your comments.

    First, I'm not suggesting that Angelopedia's staff writers are translating existing news reports. Perhaps they are relaying information received in press releases; perhaps they are watching the shows on television or live stream and reporting from that. And so, we shouldn't be expecting the site to identify sourcing that they might not have been using.

    Second, my one comment at the RS noticeboard was intended only to refute the one argument put forward against the site. A fuller discussion will permit further debate, hopefully along lines that call for the actual production of evidence. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have never seen evidence Angelpedia is anything resembling a RS and I fully support blacklisting it. I strongly suspect the site hires people to add their links to Wikipedia given how many SPA accounts operate on the topic. Jtydog deserves a barnstar for cutting out 100 crappy "sources" in one pass. Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for commenting. And I'll be happy to provide the evidence you're asking for. Angelopedia has often been used as a source by the Times News Network, the news agency of the Times of India (the country's oldest and largest-circulating English-language paper). And "use by others" is an indicia of reliability. A list of the many times it has been used as a source by TNN is here. This is precisely the type of evidence that would have been produced had the mass deletions been held off until the discussion had ended. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliability is not transitive. If the Times of India is a reliable source, and it reprints an Anglopedia piece, then the citation is reliable because it comes from the Times of India. If that source constantly reprints erroneous information from Anglopedia, the Times of India will soon lose its status as a reliable source -- but, in any case, Anglepedia does not become a reliable source because it is used as a source by a single reliable source. So WP:RS for what defines a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Too bad Miss Universe 2018 wasn't being held on board.
    Jesus dude... calm down lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I WILL NOT CALM DOWN! OUT! OUT WITH THE LOT OF YOU! EEng 04:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, EEng, somebody unclogged this noticeboard, to make room for some threads about cricket, snooker and porn stars. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Crush! Kill! Destroy! EEng 05:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC) And we are all corrosive-resistant and self-oiling. So there.[reply]
    • Lol...uh, so anyway, yeah it looks like there’s a developing consensus that it isn’t an RS, so if that remains the case, it renders your complaint moot. Maybe you should just let this one drop. Swarm ♠ 04:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=844641013"