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

Halon8

An account User:Halon8, inactive since 2012 shows up and reverts two of my edits, which are reverts of a sock of the blocked user User:Жовтневе багаття, calling my edits "vandalism" and asking me to go to the talk page (which obviously contradicts WP:BRD). I would normally decide that they are a sock of the same user and block them indefinitely, but they have a non-zero contribution from before 2012 which does not look as a contribution of User:Жовтневе багаття. Could someone please have a look at this user and decide what to do with them? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a concerted effort by several users to remove all references to autonomous movements in Russia. These sections should be strengthened with sources e.g. http://www.justicefornorthcaucasus.com/jfnc_message_boards/imperialism.php?title=window-on-eurasia%3A-separatism-remains-strong-in-tuva&entry_id=1214897100 , https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JKuCE2crlhgC&lpg=PA57&ots=DgPz8NyGpt&dq=tuva%20separatists&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=tuva%20separatists&f=false rather than simply deleted (or deleted if they are genuinely non-existent/no longer active movements- but this need to be evaluated individually not en masse). It is difficult to see how removing large sections of content (where there is clearly evidence for this content) is not vandalism, but I do apologise if I was too quick to use this term. I don't appreciate being called a sock puppet for reverting what were likely politically motivated edits violating NPOV. Since these are contraversial issues they should be discussed on Talk and a consensus reached. Halon8 (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It is great that you "seem" to see a "concerted effort" of several (which?) users but I am sure I did not coordinate anything, just reverted a blocked sock edits. Could you please explain how did it happen that your first edits since 2012 are two reverts?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I find wikipedia to be a fairly hostile place which is why I don't edit frequently. The editors who removed content can be seen on the history page - basically you and User: My very best wishes (I thought there were some un-named users as well but I may be mistaken). I was looking for content about Russia's autonomous movements and I found that it had largely been deleted so I reverted it. I apologise that I'm not an expert in wiki-lawyering. I am going to wait for others to weigh in on this. I really don't understand why this can't simply be discussed on the talk pages of the two articles. Many of the 'movements' listed are made up of only a few people (e.g. Yorkshire or Wessex) but without some sourceable definition of what is 'active' and what is a 'valid' autonomous movement then Russian movements should not be treated differently to the others Halon8 (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of vandalism isn't going to do anything to alleviate the perceived hostility. That's assuming bad faith. Kleuske (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I have apologised for using the term vandalism. I still find it hard to understand how any editors would remove such a large amount of content in good faith including for example the well known Chechnyan independence movement. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/18/world/europe/russia-chechen-ramzan-a-kadyrov.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FChechnya&action=click&contentCollection=world&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0 Halon8 (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Irondome tells me that the sockpuppetry accusation has been withdrawn. If so, this should be stated on the ANI and on my Talk page. Reverting someone's edit is not a reason to call them a sockpuppet and open a dispute about them, and a long standing Administrator should know this. They should be leading by example not letting their emotions get the better of them and terrifying editors with threats of blocking. Imagine if I had been a new user who had made the revert - Ymblanter has admitted that they would just have blocked me immediately which is in violation of policy. He/she could have just posted on my Talk page or the article's Talk page to start with. I have incidentally found the section of the Talk page where he had earlier discussed making the edit with My very best wishes, but it is misleadingly not in the existing Russia section, doesn't mention Russia and doesn't really explain anything which has added to the confusion. I admit I was wrong to call him a vandal or assume anything about his motivations for removing the content and I apologise for this, but I would like to receive an apology from Ymblanter for his overreaction. Halon8 (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Halon8, as you have mentioned me I must clarify here. I said that "that suspicion appears to have been withdrawn". However Ymblanter in his subsequent comment still has suspicions that you are a block evader. Can you please clarify, are you in any way connected to User:Жовтневе багаття? Ymb above states "I would normally decide that they are a sock of the same user and block them indefinitely, but they have a non-zero contribution from before 2012 which does not look as a contribution of User:Жовтневе багаття". I took that to be a sign that you were not. However Ym still harbours doubts from his comment on my T/P. I think you should explicitly clarify your identity, and we can move forward. Irondome (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, my suspicions became even worse. Users with the total contribution of 212 edits (an zero between 2012 and 2017) usually do not start by reverts in articles which are under WP:ARBEE, they do not exactly repeat edits of a recently blocked user, they do not wikilawyer, and they do not demand an apology. We have unfortunately seen a huge amount of users with several dozens edits in ARBEE topics who suddenly start adding POV (both sides) and wikilawyer, raising suspicions they are WP:NOTTHERE. Many of them have been taken to CU and found to be socks of blocked users. The standard practice was to block those on the spot, not letting them to waste time of users in good standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously I am not User:Жовтневе багаття. I don't know how I'm supposed to clarify my identity, but I am happy to do what is asked (short of revealing personal information online). I don't think your 'standard practice' is consistent with Wikipedia policy or with the spirit of Wikipedia, but maybe this place is very different these days. Please remember that I am a real person and real people behave in a variety of different ways - we don't usually spend our whole lives editing Wikipedia non-stop. I reverted one set of edits (reverting the removal of long-standing content) - that is not reason to block someone or threaten to do so. You have been aggressive thoughout. You should only be blocking people for disruptive editing not because you suspect (based on very little) that someone is a 'bad' user. NB just because whatever-his-name was a sockpuppet doesn't automatically mean that restoring the material deleted by My very best wishes was a disruptive edit. I didn't look in depth at who had made the edit before I reverted them, and honestly, I would be worried if that was the approach that everyone was taking now (although I likely wouldnt have said it was vandalism if I had checked the user histories more closely). Edits should be judged on their merits not by checking whether someone is in the gang of respected people. Halon8 (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC) And just to clarify, I am in no way connected with User:Жовтневе багаття, I had no knowledge of this person until Ymblanter brought me here and I looked at their user page. Halon8 (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Competence required on the part of Halon8. They tell that Yakutia and Tuva are "separatist movements" [1]. They are not separatist movements, but autonomous republics. My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's try to assume some good faith and competence all around—I think there are just language issues here. Some googling indicates that there might be separatist movements within those "autonomous republics,"[2][3][4] just as there is long-term separatist movement within that other "autonomous" (cough, cough) republic of Chechnya. Based on my reading of the dif you just shared, I think that's what the editor meant. First Light (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is the problem. One must at least provide name of the corresponding separatist movement (per sources) to include a separatism movement in the list. Something like Tuva, Chechens, or even "Chechen separatists" is not a separatist movement. Let's keep apples and oranges separately. My very best wishes (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes I was using shorthand to refer to the Tuvan nationalist and Yakutian nationalist (aka Sakha nationalist) movements. I'm sorry if this was not clear (I thought we were having a productive discussion about definitions and sources). I have also learnt that I should have said WP:DUE not Notability so sorry for that too.

I'm sorry I asked for an apology - I did not realise that was not allowed. I'm sorry that my first apology continued to doubt the motivations of the editors - it was clearly not just the use of the term 'vandalism' but my doubting of their good faith that was a problem. I'm sorry I misunderstood Irondome's statement about the accusation being withdrawn. I do not understand the reference to NotHere. I do not understand the reference to ARBEE. If the two pages I edited are under some kind of arbitration, shouldn't there be a giant warning sign at the top of the Talk pages? I do not agree that the articles or material are 'trash' or 'nonsense', I just think they need improving. I do not understand how you can threaten to block someone on the basis of one set of two edits, but I'm probably wrong about this. Please could someone explain in plain English exactly what it is I am supposed to do? I have tried to find someone who can verify my identity but have not succeeded. This is all very upsetting. Halon8 (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I assumed as much (that you were referring to separatist movements within those countries). So, if there are reliable sources showing nationalist/separatist movements within those countries, then they could be added to the list, assuming they are notable enough and current. Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. Until there is proof that this user is a sockpuppet, can we assume good faith here, or is that asking too much? First Light (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

These lists have criteria for inclusion at the top. See, for example, List of active separatist movements in Asia. It tells: " Entries on this list must meet three criteria: 1. They are active movements with current, active members." and so on. OK. One needs an RS telling there is certain separatism movement, rather than a single activist or simply citizens who are not involved in any movements, but have a personal opinion on the subject of autonomy. I would also assume that the movement must have a name, just like any object to be included in any list (e.g. any protein in a list of proteins must have a name, etc.). My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this really is a conversation about semantic difference (that should be on the Talk pages not here). In my view, these movements were easily verifiable i.e. the sources I've provided do show evidence of separatist or autonomous movements, e.g. the Moscow Times article says "Chechnya and Dagestan are seen as the main centers of separatism in Russia, but there are also separatist movements in regions including Tatarstan, Tuva, Bashkortostan, Sakha, and even regions where the majority of the population is Russian, such as exclave Kaliningrad and the Primorsky region in the Far East". There is a whole book and many articles about the autonomy movement in Tatarstan https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7ydo7Idyqj0C&dq=Council+of+Aksakals+of+Bashkortostan&source=gbs_navlinks_s, plus two politial parties advocating for autonomy. There is an article on circassian nationalism. These are well known movements. Social movements can have different names and are not the same as advocacy groups. Books such as https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Encyclopedia_of_the_Stateless_Nations_A.html?id=OLKKVXgEpkoC&redir_esc=y list movements by the name of the area or ethnic group. The criteria for the lists does not actually ask for a name for the movement - virtually every other entry on the list just says the name of the area. I didn't really intend to get engaged in these articles to such an extent, and if nobody minds, I would really like to just step out those discussions. Halon8 (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC) NB I meant that the Circassian and Tatarstan movements are well known - I'm not sure about about many of the others. However, deleting minority Russian movements while leaving minority movements in other countries creates undue weight. Halon8 (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Halon8, I agree with you — it is an artificial and made-up requirement that a separatist group needs to have a name. As long as Reliable Sources cover a separatist social movement or named group, whether given a name or not, it would meet Wikipedia's requirements. As far as notability of these things, that should be determined on the article's talk page or one of the other Noticeboards, not here. Stepping out of discussions that attract nationalistic editors is probably wise. It's hard to find neutral editors who are willing to get into these disputes. It's why I won't touch these articles more than to offer neutral opinion here and at WP:RSN. First Light (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Certified Gangsta's userspace

Certified Gangsta (talk · contribs) has had a long and chequered career on Wikipedia since at least 2006, with many different usernames — YOLO Swag, Bonafide.hustla, and Freestyle.king come to mind — and a long block log. Certified Gangsta was one of his earliest accounts, and he has now returned to that name after being gone for four years. AFAIK, he used to mostly change his name per the proper procedures, which means the block log has come with him. Bonafide.hustla and Freestyle.king are, however, exceptions: those blocks (quite numerous) are here and here. Please note that there are links to those logs in Certified Gangsta's log: look for User:East718's dummy entry on 21 November 2008.

All clear so far? My problem is this: in 2013, Od Mishehu created a page in Certified Gangsta's own userspace, containing a list of six other blocks, all of them from 2006. These old blocks seem to be all now under the name Certified Gangsta, so I don't understand why they don't appear in Certified Gangsta's regular block log. The technicalities of this are beyond me, and I appeal to people to please not explain it here, unless against all the odds it has some interest.

Certified Gangsta doesn't like having this page in his userspace, and has blanked it and asked me to delete it. User request to delete subpages in their own space falls under the WP:U1 speedy criterion, but the case was unusual, and Od Mishehu had specifically written on the page "Note: Please note that this page should not be deleted even if the user requests for it. This is the user's record under old user names."[5] Therefore, I asked Od Mishehu privately if he was all right with me deleting the page, but he's not, and refers to the specifics of WP:U1: "In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page."

I would still like to delete the page, and would like to know what the community thinks. My reason is twofold:

1. I don't see that we need such a scrupulous record at all of blocks that are so old, 2006. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

2. If we really do need that ancient record, then I don't understand the need to keep the list in CG's own space, which is humiliating and chafing for him. I'll acknowledge that he has always been a problematic user, but he's nevertheless a person, and deserves personal consideration just like everybody else. I see where Od Mishehu was coming from when he created the page in 2013, but why not move it somewhere less hurtful, now that the user has returned? Od Mishehu has put a note in CG's block log, at the top, linking to the page. Now obviously that note in the log could just as well link to the same information somewhere else — say in Od Mishehu's own space. I'd appreciate knowing what people think.

Bishonen | talk 17:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC).

• Oh lord. Delete the thing. Six eleven-year-old blocks aren't going to matter when there are numerous more recent blocks to consider if sanctions are needed again. If there is an administrative need then an administrator can follow the link from the dummy edit in the block log and view the deleted page anyway. TimothyJosephWood 17:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• I say keep until there's some better way to knit together the user's disparate block logs, though courtesy blanking should be fine. No other user gets to blank their own block logs. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Users don't get to blank their block logs, but whether this subdocument is a block log is less clear; I've never heard of such documentation being kept in a user's space against their will. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the alternative to knitting together the various block logs of a user who's been blocked with multiple accounts is probably SPI. Some idle entry in their user space is probably preferable from a dignity perspective. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• This could have been an interesting debate, but there's a shortcut that takes all the complications out of it: I believe I've confirmed that all blocks and unblocks listed on Od Mishehu's page are already also listed in the actual block logs of Freestyle.king and Bonafide.husla, as already noted by East718 in the current block log. So the subpage can be deleted, it has no additional info that isn't already documented. The deletion rationale should be "Page no longer needed, blocks of previous usernames already documented in current block log by East718" or something similar, so people following OM's link won't be puzzled. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hmm, well yes, then that seems fine. Delete the page, whatever administrative need it was fulfilling is fulfilled by East718's entry. Unless OD has some other reason for keeping it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Keep the page but hide the content (revdel?) so that only administrators can see it. That way everyone would be happy, no public humiliation for the Gangsta' but easily readable for the only ones who could possibly be interested in it, i.e. admins. 18:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas.W (talk • contribs)

We're talking here about a user who has repeatedly changed usernames, and who I suspect (although this is only an opinion) does this to try and prevent users from "remembering" him. He ran for MEDCOM under one username, 2 RFAs undr 2 other names (the second one being Certified.Gangsta, in June 2008), and was back in the December 2008 ArbCom elections under yet a different name. He subsequently ran for ArbCom twice more, the second time under yet a different name. A user like this needs to keep his record with him for everyone to see. Unlike most of us, though, there is a good reason to hide part of it: he got renamed twice before the block logs were transfered for renamed users, and those old names were taken by known troll. This pagfeis a way to keep his blocks, under those names, with him - without making him look like this specific troll at a glance. Admins can confirm that when I created this page, I also hid a dummy line in his block log linking to these 2 accounts. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

But, as I commented above, the other usernames' block logs are *already* listed in his block log, linked to by East718's note. If you're saying your way would have been better, that might be true, but the toothpaste is out of the tube, the usernames and block logs are all linked. This subpage is just a duplicate. If CG prefers it not be in his userspace anymore, it should be fine to delete the page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Delete, as Floquenbeam has found where the original blocks are documented in actual block logs. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Only if we unhide East718's log entry, which I think is worse for CG. This was the reason that I did it - I thought that this would be a better way that next time CG runs for additional rights, he can be judged by the community on all and only his own record. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. I didn't know that East718's entry was only visible to admins; I could see it, I assumed everyone could. If there's consensus here that the entries aren't needed at all, then delete the page and keep East's entry hidden. If there's consensus here to keep one or the other (instead of just ignoring those old blocks) then I think the choice should be left up to CG: keep the page, or unhide East718's entry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I find it hard to imagine a scenario where some decision has been made on sanctions or rights and somehow this information from 2006 pushes things over the edge. The information is sufficiently stale so as to make the whole think look a bit pointy. TimothyJosephWood 19:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this really going to make any practical difference, ever? Are we looking at a potential Arbcom candidate whose application would be stymied only by those small few blocks out of a lifetime of them? How about we get real, delete this stuff to help a real human person in their wish to come back, and go worry about more important things? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The point is that each voter has the right to decide for himself/herself how relevant these blocks are; we shouldn't make the decision for him/her. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Then point voters at the actual block logs, and don't force a user to keep links to them in their own user space like a badge of shame. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

A userspace page is generally not seen by visitors to the user's userspace unless (s)he actually includes links to them or transclusions of them. The only link I provided to this page is from the user's block log. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That's an irrelevant diversion - now that the block logs have been found, there is no policy-based justification for forcing a user to keep their own additional copy in their own userspace. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I've refrained from commenting so far since I simply want to let this process take its course and minimize any potential drama. However, I do think I deserve credit for always applying username change through the proper channel when I easily could have opted for clean start or exercised my right to vanish like many others do, especially in light of my sporadic editing history over the past 6-7 years (unfortunately, that's just the way my real life has been going). All my contributions over the past 11 years are on this account and I have made no attempt whatsoever to conceal my history, so I think it's unfair for User:Od Mishehu to assume bad faith by opining that I change username as a way to "try and prevent users from "remembering" me". As far as I know, no other users have ever been subjected to one-second blocks and user space "badge of shame" like I have been. And the lack of precedents is quite disconcerting. For example, when User:Sumple was blocked for disruption [6], he immediately abandoned his account in favor of a brand new account User:PalaceGuard008 without going through Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple in a clear-cut attempt to wipe clean his block log. When he was exposed, admins on AN/I concluded that it was deception at best [7] [8] and abusive sockpuppetry at worst [9]. Yet there has been no effort whatsoever to fully document the block log of User:PalaceGuard008 despite the fact that his old Sumple account was once blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry (later overturned just like many of my old blocks). And frankly, this is just one out of the many examples that I have personally witnessed where problematic users are allowed to bypass Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple and wipe clean their block log, which is something I would never do as a matter of principle. However, I think it would only be fair if User:Od Mishehu takes the initiative to fully chronicle User:PalaceGuard008 block log, including those from his old User:Sumple account, through the administrative use of 1-second block. Last but not least, I would like to thank everyone, in particular User:Boing! said Zebedee for taking the time to participate in this discussion and User:Bishonen for bringing this issue to AN/I. Happy editing!--Certified Gangsta (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia machine has notified me that I have been implicated in this discussion. I am posting here only to say that I object to being brought into this discussion by User:Certified Gangsta, whom I regard as a wholly disruptive, net-destructive user, in this way. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Uninvolved administrative suggestion: What about just making several 1 second blocks making a note of the old blocks, documenting the time and reason they were done.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• I'd be okay with deleting the page as a duplicate of their block log, if we can unhide that block log entry from East718 which adds the necessary context. User:Od Mishehu, is there any reason in your view to keep that log entry hidden? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC).
  • The reason I hid this log entry is that there is no reason to connect CG with the new accounts under the names Freestyle.king and Bonafide.hustla (these accounts are Grawp's); I made thwe duplicate so that all community members would be aable to see these block log entries. Should CG ever run for any permissions again (quite likely he will), the community should judge him according to his record, his whole record, and nothing but his record. Giving them easy access to these first usernames violates the "nothing but his record" bit; keeping them away from these log entries violates the "his whole record" bit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

While I recognize the argument that a Wikipedia editor's history should be visible (while noting the apparent contradiction conveyed by cleanstart policy), I note that:

• The actual block log entries in question do still exist and have been found.
• The user in question has followed policy regarding the renaming of accounts and does not appear to have attempted to disguise their past through cleanstarting or through other means.
• There is a policy basis for retaining user space pages if there is an administrative need, but the spirit of that policy appears to be aimed at user pages created by users themselves and not pages created by other editors/admins in their user space.
• There is no precedent I can find for forcing a user to retain a page in their user space created by another editor/admin without clear consensus.
• There is only one admin here (the admin who created the page in question) arguing for the retention of the page in question.
• When a consensus is not established in favour of overturning the status quo, that status prevails.
• There is no consensus for overturning the status quo with respect to WP:U1.

I therefore inform that community that, in the absence of any clear policy reason for forcing a user to retain in their own user space a page created by someone else, or a clear consensus in opposition to that default policy position, in 48 hours from now I will delete the user page in question in accordance with the provisions of WP:U1. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - As should be obvious. But I will say that I would much prefer it if OM made the point moot, recognized that the consensus is against them on this one, and did it themselves, even if they disagree with it. TimothyJosephWood 13:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Forcing a user to keep a page in their userspace for this reason sets a bad precedent. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Deleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you User:Boing! said Zebedee!--Certified Gangsta (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Bob Henshaw introducing errors en masse

For over a year and a half User:Bob Henshaw's only purpose on Wikipedia has been to add census information to articles on English villages and parishes. I've seen him regularly pop up on my watchlist and have never interacted with him prior to today, but a few months ago I saw him add blatant errors to a couple dozen of Hampshire villages that I watch. I thought little of it at the time and quietly fixed his errors. However, a cursory glance through his contributions reveals that he doesn't just add nonsensical statements, mangled sentences, and incorrect population figures to just a few stubs, no, he's been doing this every day for every county in England since January 2015. Hundreds of unseen edits. While I think he's been doing this in good faith and don't want to discourage him from adding population figures from the 2011 census (which is useful), the fact is that does more harm than good and most of his edits are disruptive. The problem is much larger than I can put in diffs, but I'll highlight several I've pulled out from his recent contributions at random as examples:

• After I left him a message on his talk page pointing out his errors, he ignored it and made two more errors to Antony, Cornwall, completely breaking the infobox template twice and not bothering to fix it
• Adds nonsensical sentences like "At the 2011 Census the population was included in the civil parish of" which makes no sense gramatically and is just fluff. He does this to almost every article he comes across. He also very rarely adds full stops[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]
• Lately he's been adding the same horrible construction to villages in Cornwall[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. These are only just a few - spot the missing brackets, full stops, and typos.
• According to the Post Office the population at the 2011 census. According to the Post Office? This is just one diff, but a recent one. "According to the Post Office" is a commonplace phrase in his editing. No idea what it even means. That and "at the 2011 census", not "as of the 2011 census", which makes grammatical sense
• [28] According to the Post Office again
• Durford Wood, 14 Dec: Adds that it is in the the civil parish of Rogate. No it isn't, Rogate is in Sussex, a different county. The post town is also incorrect[29]
• Bentworth, 31 Jan: Adds that Woolmer is in the civil parish of Bentworth. No it isn't, Woolmer is 20 miles away and isn't related at all. Where does he get this from?[30]
• Flexcombe, 27 Dec: One of the countless "(where the 2011 Census population was included)," sentence again. Flexcombe is not in the parish of Liss, it is in Steep[31]
• Froxfield, Hampshire, 18 Dec: "At the 2011 Census the hamlet had become a civil parish in its own name".[32] What the hell. It has had its own civil parish for centuries. It wasn't suddenly created in 2011. Where in this source does it say that? He's making it up
• Finchdean, 16 Dec: The Post Office does not tell you what civil parish a hamlet lies in, maps do. At least he got the civil parish right this time, but still adds in the fluff[33]
• Another thing he does all the time is adding in the 2011 population figures in an infobox whilst keeping in the 2001 figures.[34] (only one diff, but there are likely hundreds more). I think this clutters the infobox because there's no need to keep an outdated figure
• At the 2011 census, not "As of the 2011 census". Rare full stop
• Isington, 21 Dec: " At the 2011 Census the Post Office confirm that the population". The post town is not Alton, it is Farnham.[35]
• Idsworth, 21 Dec: Another "the Post Office confirm that", but at least the post town is correct this time[36]

The diffs are the tip of the iceberg. You just have to look through his past 250 contributions to see that he is adding these nonsensical sentences and false information en masse in almost every edit. I know that he does this in good faith his editing is very problematic. I would like to propose a topic ban if the gross errors continue. I'm sorry that I can't list more diffs, but I invite you to just look through his contributions and pull out an article at random. JAGUAR  21:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted a few unreferenced population changes but there are many hundreds, it's getting VERY disruptive, the vast number of poorly edited, unsourced changes. Theroadislong (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite get why you found it necessary to leave two level-3 warnings and one level-4 warning hours after he had stopped editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't look like he's ever used a talk page. A short block might get his attention. --Tarage (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

He's used his twice so he know it's there. I'd rather wait and see if he starts editing without responding. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Do we want to bet on how poor his unblock request will be? No points for "I dindo nuffin" 01:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

When I saw the heading of this section I thought it was something serious, like use of inaccurate data or unsourced and unllkely information. Biut these are minor errors in wording and grammar. They do not confuse the sense. I think all that is necessary is for them to be silently corrected, and the standard wording explained to him. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Are we reading the same section? There's an entire list of "inaccurate data or unsourced and unllkely information" just above. --Calton | Talk 03:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I was literally about to say the same thing. There's almost nothing accurate about this person's edits. Putting towns in the wrong county is very serious, let alone not being able to write a simple sentence. Capeo (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is much larger and more serious than I had previously thought. I went through his contributions a minute ago, skipped 100 pages and pulled one a diff at random. On St Anthony-in-Meneage he has changed the population figure from 178 to 168.[37] According to the source which he got it from, the population is 178 as of the 2011 census, not 168. He changed it for no logical reason. The sentence in the lead now reads "In the 2001 census the parish had a population of 171, increasing to 168 at the 2011 census". Increasing from 171 to 168. Pretty much every edit I'm pulling out either has an error in it or contains a mangled sentence. The list of errors above were mostly from Hampshire, and I could tell right off the bat that the post towns and civil parishes were wrong because I know the local area well. I have no idea how many hundreds of errors he has made nationwide. JAGUAR  12:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I've raised similar issues with this user in the past and been ignored as well - the user talk page has a section from 2016 when he was editing Suffolk articles en masse (my area). Others have added similar concerns as well. I don't think I ever got a response or saw a change in editing style or content. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I am one of the few editors that Bob has interacted with on his talkpage, and I don't think it's his intention to be disruptive, though I agree that some of his edits are unclear or a bit slapdash, and need adjusting or tightening. For example, in this edit, which Theroadislong reverted as not being supported by the source, if you look at the Neighbourhood Statistics page for Manaccan, it can be seen that the figure tallies with what Bob changed it to. Unfortunately Bob didn't change the source. (There remains the question of which source is accurate - it might be that the figure on the Neighbourhood Statistics page includes another unnamed parish in addition to Manaccan - a quite common scenario - whereas the the genuki source does not). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly and he is making hundreds of similar edits which might be accurate, but are unsourced or are now cited to the wrong source. Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I have encountered Bob elsewhere on the net. Without wishing to out him, he's an intelligent and knowledgeable chap, but computers aren't his forte. Obviously blocks are not punitive, but I really hope it doesn't come to that as I'm not sure he'd be able to file a convincing unblock request. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure he's doing this in good faith, and I don't wish to antagonise him, but the majority of his edits are either incorrect of malformed. I'm in the process of doing a cleanup of all the Hampshire settlements he has edited, and already found a couple of errors in the first minute. "At the 2011 Census the population was included inb the civil parish of King's Somborne"[38], "According to the Post Office the 2011 Census population was included in the civil parish of Langrish"[39]. I really don't want to see him blocked but the problems are very widespread and I dread to think of the hours of cleanup that is going to be involved. I hope he can change his approach to editing. JAGUAR  17:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's more the case that some of his edits are not clearly written or explained. In the example given above from the Little Somborne article, I think what Bob meant was that the census information for the parish has been lumped together with that of King's Somborne, as can be seen from the map at the Neighbourhood Statistics page for King's Somborne (and also from Bob's edits at the King's Somborne article). I suspect many of his other 'errors' are similar. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Any idea how to reach out to him? He's edited without acknowledging this thread. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I've blocked. I've not used the template, but a personalised message trying to explain as best I can that we're not punishing him. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have to go through AWB and do my best to remove his awful constructions but I'm worried how many errors there are that people won't be able to pick up. I looked through his user talk page on the SABRE wiki—it seems that he caused the same level of disruption over there as he did here. It's a shame as he could have been a productive editor had he just stuck to updating population numbers themselves. JAGUAR  21:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It does look like the post-town and census changes got all mixed up. Perhaps we could just apply the correct data to the articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC).

Is there any way to mass rollback somebody's edits through AWB or a bot? I have never seen anything this bad before. It has taken me over two hours to fine-tune AWB and yet I had to remove 200 of his malformed sentences manually. I still can't pick out his errors. Every edit of his I have been through so far has had the wrong civil parish in it. So far I've been through over 300 of his 11906 remaining edits and it just screams "nuke from orbit". I can't begin to explain the extent of this problem. JAGUAR  15:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to post this here (and note that I'm not an administrator). If it is not possible, perhaps that a hidden category and a temporary census-update WikiProject may be in order? Software algorithms are often weak at merging old diffs into new revisions; a backlog of cases that couldn't be done would usually still result for human manual fixing, except if completely reverting to an older revision. But I actually don't know much about the current software Wikimedia has, except for the database backend of an old MediaWiki version that I had to port to another database as a job, years ago... PaleoNeonate (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I really doubt it's possible to merge old diffs or rollback one's edits, but it would be a quicker way to get rid of the errors... JAGUAR  19:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This is is a potentially usful bit of info, but in the wrong place. Saying that the population for a hamlet was included into the total for a larger nearby village is a useful comment, but the way he's done it is odd to say the least. He added the text "(where the 2011 census population was included)" in the middle of the introductory sentence so that it now reads "Darite is a village in the civil parish of St Cleer (where the 2011 census population was included), Cornwall, England, United Kingdom." (diff) Why didn't he add it as a separate sentence? - X201 (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

His nonsensical statements are everywhere. I reckon three in every four of the articles he has edited has a mistake like that in it. JAGUAR  19:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Bob hasn't edited anything since his block. L3X1 (distant write) 21:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but ... this sounds kind of like how blocks are supposed to work... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just combed through every single one of his 11,000+ edits through AWB. To accomplish this I split the articles he edited into several lists so it would make AWB load the pages faster. It wasn't that difficult considering he has only made two non-mainspace edits! I managed to rewrite most of his mangled and nonsensical sentences through the "find and replace" function, but I definitely missed some. Every now and again I rollbacked some of his obvious errors if he was the most recent person to edit the article in question. I made almost 2000 corrections in total, but of course AWB didn't fix the errors themselves. To do that would require going through every article, checking the census information and looking at a map to see if the civil parish is correct or if the population figures check out. Cornwall, Northamptonshire and Hampshire were the worst affected, and Kent, Manchester, Somerset, most northern counties and all Welsh counties were almost untouched, although he had edited them. It was astonishing to see that he went through every county in England and Wales in the space of one year without anybody noticing his errors. I'm not sure how to proceed now since AWB is quite limited and many of the errors can only be found by fact-checking. It's a pity that Fram didn't get to this first... JAGUAR  19:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hear ye hear ye. When the above user is one a mission, steer clear. Half of this week's edits they did in 24 hours. L3X1 (distant write) 23:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jaguar: The more I think about this case, the more I think that the best course of action is to put every potentially affected article in a polluted hidden category to keep track of them, and then start the slow trudge through them. - X201 (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I suspect almost every edit he has made either has a subtle error in it or an ungrammatical/broken sentence somewhere. I'm sure I didn't fix all of the issues through AWB, but a process like that would take a very long time. It does seem to be one option though... JAGUAR  11:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Albignoni making legal and personal threats

Albignoni (talk · contribs · logs), a single purpose account with 8 edits since: 2015-01-02, edit warring to exclude information about a source which proves that his prior edits (performed as dynamic IPs) were made up. He's throwing legal and personal threats in two languages at me. Quote (from summary of a dynamic IP): you will get problems with my lawyer, and in Polish (as Albignoni): Wydawnictwo Znak i moj adwokat znajda cie, which translates roughly as: Sign Publishing and my lawyer with hunt you down boy".[40] Editing history:

1. Logged out as 93.230.43.90 (talk · contribs · logs) from Baden-Württemberg, 23 March 2017, removing the same book reference.[41]
2. Logged out as 149.172.46.139 (talk · contribs · logs) from Baden-Württemberg, 25 March 2017, removing the same book reference.[42]
3. Logged out as 134.3.199.60 (talk · contribs · logs) from Baden-Württemberg, 7 October 2016, removing book reference and adding the false quote in question but without the actual source-link.[43]
4. Logged out as‎ 109.192.182.68 (talk · contribs · logs) from Baden-Württemberg, 3 August 2016, the same false quote inserted for the first time with link to Google Books which proves that it does not exist.[44]

Poeticbent talk 03:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked the account. Which, BTW, means that any further edits from the user under IPs fall under WP:3RRNO. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. A bit of WP:DOLT maybe. The diffs above show the IP removing links to a PDF file which appears to be a copy of a book which is protected by copyright laws - the author died in 2000. In all likelihood, this PDF is hosted in violation of the creator's copyright. WP:COPYLINK clearly says that this link MUST be removed. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Poeticbent and Ian.thomson, as Biwom says, it looks as though Albignoni was removing a link to an unauthorized copy of the book. I've removed the link, which is dead now anyway. I've also left the quote from the first Picador edition on the talk page (which was apparently in doubt), in case it's helpful. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please be advised that this affair is not about the Wikipedia article's sourcing per se. The real (!) conflict is all about money and privilege in the real world. The family of Władysław Szpilman received oodles (no doubt) from the producers of the The Pianist (2002 film) for the rights to the story. Ever since, dynamic IPs such as user: 94.254.197.112 (talk · contribs · logs) (not mentioned above) scream bloody murder at the sound of the name Jerzy Waldorff, a renown Polish writer who wrote the book for Szpilman after the war ended. – Here are the samples of relevant edit summaries dating back to 2013 by IP 94.254.197.112 (whom I believe to be the same person): → Gestapo Collaborator and Gangster -antisemitic lies, slander and libel ... Stop devastating of this bio by polish antisemits ... stop vandalism look out - you may get some problems with the justice for lies and wrong information about authorship. – I did not list this incident in my original report only because it was four years old already. Poeticbent talk 15:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Whatever the wrongs of other users, it would be great if you could show some contrition for repeatedly ([45] [46] [47] [48] [49]) restoring in an article about a copyrighted book a link to a copy of that very book. "Respect copyright laws" is actually something you can read at WP:5P. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. The internal link to essay Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats (posted above) would imply that the Wikipedia article The Pianist (memoir) might be "a ghastly article – either full of lies or a one-sided hatchet job spinning its sources" (end of quote) as our WP:DOLT explains. I'm sure you didn't mean that. Reverting unsupported changes which include faked citations,[50] by single purpose dynamic IPs (with apparent conflict of interest) is part of Wikipedia process. – This however, does not mean that the articles cannot be improved. The link to a PDF copy of the book has been subsequently removed by SarahSV, good enough. I also responded to her note in talk. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Poeticbent talk 18:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've rewritten that lead to make the authorship issue clearer. I think all the copyvio links have been removed; Biwom, thanks for removing the last of them. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ian.thomson, the same person is back as 149.172.46.139 (talk · contribs · logs), removing sourced content from The Pianist (memoir). [51] SarahSV ^(talk) 16:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Protected the page for a month. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Doc James, thanks. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I have received two threatening and abusive emails already from the same individual, one through the Wikipedia email system from user Albignoni and one via facebook, both in Polish and signed by the full name of the person in question. I would not be posting his name here, for some might consider it outing, but I'd be happy to forward the threats delivered to me via Wikipedia email to whomever it might concern, including User:Doc James, SarahSV, and User:Ian.thomson. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 17:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes feel free to share with me. I have removed their ability to send email. Not sure what mechanisms FB has for these sort of issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Poeticbent, I would like to see those messages if you can email them to me. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

massive deletions

User:JzG has been doing wholesale deletes on any footnote citation to a thinktank. about 50+ in the last hour or so. Most of theese are solid rs -- including two I added after studying an issue on food supply. user Rejects using talk page and gives a very poor explanation at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjensen&diff=prev&oldid=772281822 Rjensen (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been removing large scale link spamming, in this case notably including think tanks. The paid editing of user:Vipul and associates added large numbers of links to libertarian think tanks (Vipul is an associate of Bryan Caplan and added numerous primary sourced sections of the form "Bryan Caplan said X, source, Bryan Caplan saying X on his blog"). I have also been removing references to anti-vaccination propaganda sites, predatory open access journals and other sources we should not be using.

There's been discussion of a very small number of these removals on my talk page, most have been uncontroversial. And when I say most, what with the predatory journals it must be well into the thousands by now.

And every now and then someone doesn't like it and complains. Welcome to the list :-) Guy (Help!) 11:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And there is also talk at User talk:Rjensen. This has not excallated to a point where it needs discussion here yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, this edit [52] by the OP is supposed to be a "fix" for my "bias", claiming that he'd checked the sources. A website called "Farm Policy Facts", of no evident authority, a 404 link to farmland.org, and primary sourced references to someone the OP says he has personally decided is reliable (good job, well done). So this is perhaps not entirely as straightforward as the OP makes out. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Some think tanks are considered reputable and neutral sources of information about a particular center that they specialize in (e.g. Pew Research Center), others are simply providers of opinion from a particular political perspective. In dealing with think tanks of the latter type there needs to be some kind of indication that their opinion on a topic is notable, and generally it should be explicitly attributed to them as their view. (i.e. not "Charles Murray is a White Nationalist" but "The Southern Poverty Law Center have described Murray as a White Nationalist"). It seems reasonable to remove information based on political-opinion type think tank sources if they do not clearly identify the source, if the view they express can be considered controversial, or if there are more reliable sources available about the topic. When information is challenged and removed, the person who wishes to include it must make the argument for why the source is admissible and the material neutral.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile Rjensen has claimed that WP:NPOV requires the use of biased sources, which is contradicted by the NPOV policy which says " Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Links to Library of Economics and Liberty http:// econlib .org/ is one the of think tanks affected. Is it considered unreliable, with no useful information? I know it has a libertarian bias, but some of its content could be valuable.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Econlib definitely has good content and pieces published by it have often been quoted or cited in reliable secondary sources. Many of its authors are AFAIK professors of economics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

And if there are articles which are good, then they will be published in the peer reviewed literature. The issue here is somewhat analogous to the many SCAM-specific pseudomedical journals: when your peer review consists solely of people who have the same ideological biases, then it is not effective because ideologically consonant bullshit, or mischaracterisations of competing ideologies, are much less likely to be detected. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• The claim appears to be WP:REFSPAM. That policy seems to be about deliberate insertion for some gain other than providing reliable citation. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Think tanks have an interest in being linked from a site like wikipedia, so I would tend to agree with Guy that if a another source is available for the same information it should be preferred (unless of course the opinoin of the think tank is itself notable).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

First, a lot of it was deliberate refspam. Vipul blogs at econlib (or rather, econlog, which it econlib's blog), and virtally every article he edited where any ref could be crowbarred in, there it is, loud and proud. He also expanded articles on a number of other econlib associates, and added self-sourced opinions by Caplan, especially, to dozens of articles on high level subjects.

Second, a lot of it was subtle refspam, such as online copies of books by historical figures like Mill, presented as being published by the "library of economics and liberty". This is basically no different to linking to a book source via Amazon: the website is selling something (in this case libertarian ideology, more than product, but that's not a difference that is actually important). Out of copyright books should be ported to Wikisource or linked on Gutenberg or some other neutral source. There's a second more subtle bias too: if we only have online full text for the books that the libertarian think tank likes, are readers more likely to drink of that well, rather than look up dead-tree books with a different perspective? That question answers itself, and is a large part of the reason I think these links have been added.

Third, the "library of economics and liberty" is a libertarian think tank, and in many cases its publications were presented as if they were authoritative and neutral sources. That is an NPOV problem. And I wuld have exactly the same issue if it were the Fabian Society, and in fact I have removed a lot of links to a Marxist equivalent as well.

Vipul's paid editing ring was all about SEO. Removing these links is just undoing that damage. If any of this content is published in scholarly journals, it can be cited from there. We should not use partisan primary sources, and we definitely should push back when people associated with those sources have engaged in years-long efforts to boost their presence on Wikipedia, as is unquestionably the case here. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links/refs are no-follow, so the SEO argument is invalid. Using a primary source (partisan or otherwise) is dependent on the topic and the content. Morphh ^(talk) 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that can be stated categorically. Consider a recent paid-editing job "we are looking for a strong signal from Wikipedia Page to our website" [53]. – Bri (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not really a refspam problem as what's being described here though. That's an article notability, self-interest problem. We also can't speak to that advertiser's competency on the matter. No-follow was added on all external links in 2007 at the request of Jimbo. Morphh ^(talk) 16:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Every single SEO article I have read that mentions Wikipedia, notes that fact, and then goes on to say that it's still extremely important to promote your website and brand on Wikipedia, including through reference links. These are dark arts, and the people who do it for a living appear to have no morals. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• I also have problems with the way Guy is going about this. This appears like a one-sided machete approach of search and delete for sites he doesn't like (free market think tanks). I've been in organized campaigns to remove econ ref-spam for Austrian school - this is not how it is done. I've not see consensus to remove these sources, no review of the sourced content, no review of the source itself. I've never even heard of Vipul. It's a blacklist and if the article references something in the blacklist, it's bias and needs to be removed. Take a look at this ridiculous tagging of an FA article that has received considerable peer-review and been stable for years. I think this has moved from a well intentioned effort to remove ref-spam into something else. Morphh ^(talk) 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I inclined to agree with this. It has been with good intent but a bit heavy handed. I'm all for finding better sources, but this takes time. Perhaps it would be better to remove questionable reference and initially put in a citation needed tag, rather than chopping whole paragraphs.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Or alternatively, rather than delete, add, for example, .--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That FA hasn't been reviewed for ten years, and I strongly suspect it might fail if that was to happen now. It's 33K bigger, there's a whole unsourced section in there, and it's full of weasel wording ("Critics say...", "Supporters claim..." and similar). It does need a good clean-up. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite The unsourced section is due to Guy removing the sources as described in this ANI. I haven't reverted it. The large increase in size was likely the last section recently added that lists all the sponsors. Again, I didn't revert it and it hasn't been discussed - it's more of a list than content. That's not to say it couldn't use cleanup, but those are things we can easily discuss on the talk page. Morphh ^(talk) 18:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The source for that entire section gives you a 404 error. Regardless, even if it was fixed you can't source an entire section - in Wikipedia's voice - to "Americans for Fair Taxation". Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you there. My point wasn't a rebuttal - I also agree that it would probably fail. I was just explaining the current state. At one point that section had several sources but I haven't kept up with it. That's actually one of the edits that I agree with Guy on, so it's a bad example. Morphh ^(talk) 19:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Certainly edits like this or this aren't too clever. Nor is the edit summary remotely accurate. Here and here we see a link to an out-of-copyright textbook being removed because the website hosting it somehow contaminates it as "refspam" (but we keep the ref because it was always relevant, now just without easy access to the online text). Or even valid ELs from elsewhere that are simply in the same EL section.

I have an inherent distrust of any single-issue crusades like this. They rarely give rise to well thought out edits. This batch seems to be based on econlog.econlib.org (which I can't even add) being seen as so non-RS that it should be in the edit blacklist, bulk-removed (and of course BRD then conveniently no longer works, as it's blacklisted from the pleb editors) and then any associated articles AfDed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Kling Now I can't immediately justify that Kling is notable, or that economists (he's clearly an economist) shouldn't just be removed because they play for the wrong team. And certainly not when that involves facing off against an omniscient, omnipotent admin over a content dispute. But bulk removals with an agenda behind them so rarely give rise to positive editing. Maybe these do need to go. Maybe as a "socialist cuck" my personal agenda agrees with Guy's here, I just don't use mine as a guide to editing. Re [54] I have absolutely no idea what "think-tankery" is and why it justifies summary removal of references like this. I don't like right wing fruitbats any more than anyone else, but sometimes the contemporary fruitbat position on a theory such as hydraulic macroeconomics is still worth knowing. Certainly right wing fruitbats are commentators on the naming of fruitbats. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Of your diffs, I would have removed the first one straight away as well - that's just original research (at the very least, it needs an "According to..."). The second one is a blog and whilst not terrible, I'm pretty sure if that's a notable theorem there will be better sourcing than that. The third and fourth are just unnecessary - the cite is already there, I don't see the need for the refspam especially as the online book is available from non-contentious sources. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

So you think the first one is a "good edit"?

Read it again.

I'm not disagreeing that, "Econlib must go!!": that's both above my pay grade and also a bit pointless to try and debate when it's such a fait accompli. But this sort of crusade (and I use the word deliberately) makes for bad, careless edits, and these are just some of them. As to the sources, then if they're so widely available then why couldn't they be fixed cleanly and fully at the time? This sort of crusade has regularly been carried out by editors (and I'm not including Guy here) doing Serious Bizniz so rapidly, because the world would end if these awful years-old links stayed there a moment longer, yet at the same time doing things like losing links to online copies (which have a tangible value to our readers). Then the poor bloody infantry are expected to clean up the mess afterwards, restoring links from hopefully acceptable sources - a task which is always far harder to do that way round, than in the right order. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That first diff sources the phrase "Mainstream macroeconomics is hydraulic. There is something called aggregate demand which you adjust by pumping in fiscal and monetary expansion.", but the source actually says "Mainstream macroeconomics is hydraulic. There is something called aggregate demand which you adjust by pumping in fiscal and monetary expansion. I wish to reject this whole concept of macroeconomics." So it's actually being sourced with something that not only is an opinion piece, but actually disagrees with it! Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, read it again.

I'm not making subjective judgements about the meaning of the sources cited. I'm just talking about basic editing, where Guy shouldn't leave truncated sentences lying around. And as for your, "(at the very least, it needs an "According to...")", then read it again: it did do just that. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

No, Andy, you're just doing what you always do: stoking needless drama. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Then be more careful with your bloody edits and don't be in such a rush that you leave obviously broken stuff like half sentences. There is no excuse for this, not even when someone as hugely important as your illustrious self is out righting great wrongs against Gotham city. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see the problem at first either, in the first one, but when I did, I fixed it. Andy, be more explicit, less elliptical, to be less dramatic. Dicklyon (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If a few admins here want to appoint themselves as Judge Dredd, being the sole law as to whether some content is permissible or not and protecting the pages from any plebs who disagree, then it's not the pleb's job to do their proof reading for them. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikt:melodramatic TimothyJosephWood 23:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The perennial problem

I am seeing above the beginnings of a repeating issue that I have encountered when removing links to predatory open access journals. I will remove, say, a hundred of these, and I will be challenged on a handful. The people challenging me will demand one or more of the following:

1. No source be removed, however problematic, unless I personally find a better source.
2. Sources be removed but no article content, i.e. replace the deleted source with {{citation needed}}
3. When removing sources, also remove all content supported by that source.
4. How dare you remove X type of source, it's perfectly reliable, you're just trying to suppress Y kind of activity or viewpoint.

My usual approach is to read the text, deciode whether it's likely to be challenged without the source, and then remove either just the source, or the entire sentence if it looks dodgy. So, WP:SYN type claims such as "Anarchists believe this is wrong, source, anarchist blog", I will remove the sentence. "Unemployment is where people have no job, source, partisan think tank" I just remove the source.

And yes, I sometimes get it wrong, and the result is usually that it gets fixed and we all move on. In some cases, though, I have had two or three people demanding mutually exclusive combinations of the above, usually because the article or content in question basically has no other source. Of the three, the last is a problem because it does not self-resolve.

Check my talk page for a list of the kinds of crap sources I am removing. OMICS Group journals and other predatory publishers, insane conspiracist websites like Natural News, whale.to and the National Vaccine Information Center, sales pages for self-published books, self-promoting spammers. I'm also active at the blacklist.

This is not some out-of-the-blue agenda against libertarian think-tanks, it's part of a long term personal project to review and improve sourcing. This particular one hit my radar due to conflicted promotional editing by user:Vipul. The problem is partisan, promotional or commercial websites which go out of their way to create a veneer of authority, used as sources on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is a collaborative project, so can collaboration assist?

How about: Discuss first, get agreement (probably not that hard), agree the scope of how far to prune (is a notable fruitbat still WP:N, or do they have to go too?) and then identify the tasks.

What is the difference between removing Econlib as a source, removing content sourced to Econlib, and removing subjects discussed by Econlib? I think this might be harder. Yet many editors, and I am one, feel deeply uneasy about removing content or topics simply and only because it has so far been sourced from Econlib.

Then there is the issue of the PD texts, with copies available from Econlib. These are a far lower priority to remove. They also add value. Per the SEO argument above, it's hard to show that they are damaging or convey prestige. So should they be removed at all? If they are to be, then there is clearly no reason to cut off our fruitbat muzzle to spite our pointy little fruitbat ears. So don't just remove them: tag them first (a 'bot task), identify the canon of texts sourced (probably not that many), find alternative and acceptable free sources for those texts, then text-by-text go through by 'bot and replace (not remove) them. Nothing is lost, the problem is fixed. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for still being active on the Vipul front, Guy. The workload you're taking on is appreciated. El_C 03:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• The pollyanna approach starts with "let's not bite the newbies" (that is, we should encourage Vipul and friends), then continues with "omg someone is reverting refspam without spending an hour to polish each turd". Instead of enabling refspam, those commenting here should be trying to improve JzG's edit at Hydraulic macroeconomics (I can't think of anything better than clicking "thank" myself). Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

So how does one improve hydraulic macroeconomics? This is an old theory, largely superseded as being too simplistic. It's attractively easy to explain, but it doesn't seem to match how reality actually behaves. Now the right wing is talking about it again. So is it relevant to that article that the right-wing has re-adopted it? Have they? But with the recent blanking, and the admin-only lock on these articles, it's impossible for other editors to work on that. That is using admin privilege to strong-arm a content issue, and it's far from the first time that we've seen Guy using his privileges to do such a thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, but actually not specific to this topic. Wikipedia has people who add content and people who curate. This is a curation issue: the content that was added, is poor. Someone will be along real soon now with some better content - especially since this is a hot topic for right wingers (check the talk pages on climate science topics). The right does currently seem to have decided to collectively re-enact the 1980s, when simplistic notions could be asserted without serious challenge. I think this is one of the reason the centre is struggling right now, because you have many complex problems and, as Mencken would have put it, each has a solution that is neat, simple and wrong. The extremes at both ends don't worry about that, the centre does. Moderate Republicans were part of the reason Trumpcare failed to make progress last week, but those same moderate Reupblicans have basically no voice in framing a better alternative, the strident soundbytes of the House Freedom Caucus drown out all other voices. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• As a partial counter to the headache these occasional complaints cause, let my add my thanks to Guy for working to clear out bad sources. I especially appreciate the removal of citations to predatory journals, but removing the paid-to-have-a-particular-opinion pieces from think tanks is also a very valuable service. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• What where the reasons for blacklisting econlib, was it its libertarian bias, its association with refspam behavior or something else? Jonpatterns (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Spamming. Its POV is irrelevant. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if POV has an influence though. There doesn't seem to have been much effort to search for sources onWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Kling before nominating it for deletion. Maybe I don't understand what "unique" means in the context of "Google finds fewer than 150 unique hits for this name," but I get 91,400 Google hits for "Arnold Kling" in quotes[55]. Even if "unique" means some kind of limited search, there are 32 results in the NY Times alone [56], so I don't see how it's plausible to think there'd be 150 only in the universe of web pages. How does an experienced editor fail so completely to find sources? --Jahaza (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the direction of the POV is not relevant. The fact that the POV is non-mainstream is relevant (as it would be if it was anarchist, say), but the fact that its non-mainstream POV is free market fundamentalism is not relevant, it just happens that this is the POV of the person doing the spamming. If they have been an Occupier then the problem and the fix would be exactly the same. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"The fact that the POV is non-mainstream is relevant" and "Its POV is irrelevant" are contradictory. You've also not explained at all what happened with this AFD.--Jahaza (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I see your misunderstanding. The issue here is WP:SPS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:ASSERT and a side order of WP:REFSPAM. The REFSPAM was the flag to review the content, but the core issues are the first three. If this was a mainstream scholarly economics journal then there would be no issue, because we can rely on their peer review, but n this case we're talking about think tanks and fundamentalist free market websites masquerading as independent scholarly sources, and that plainly is a problem. So: the direction of the POV is irrelevant, it's the magnitude that's the problem. It would be the same if it were Occupy or a Marxist site. POV think tanks are not neutral sources, however fervently they might believe otherwise. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

(non-admin view) Econlib is undeniably biased in favor of laissez-faire capitalism. This alone isn't a problem, since WP:BIASED says "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." You claim they are fundementalist and masquerading as an independent scholarly source. Have they actually advocated for fundementalism, or is this your personal analysis of their views? I don't think they're masquerading anything. They acknowledge on their about page that they want to advance people's knowledge of liberty. As far as I know, they don't claim to be unbiased or representative of mainstream economics. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I have already discussed cases where these links have been misrepresented as an authority they are not, and deceptive titles have been used. The "library" is selectively curated and only ideologically consonant articles have been promoted here, so the problem is pretty obvious. As to fundamentalist, I think it's pretty clear here as well, not least from their characteristically fundamentalist free market title, replete with Orwellian overtones. A bit like the House "Freedom" Caucus. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• I fully support Guy's cleanup of these low-quality WP:REFSPAM sites. Thanks for doing this work. Before any source is deployed widely and intentionally as it was in the Vipul effort, it is common sense (among experience editors anyway) to check it with the relevant editing community (like a WikiProject) first. If that isn't done, one can expect pushback, as has happened here. If folks who find these references valuable want to keep them, they should discuss them and get buy-in at the relevant WikiProject. This is very similar to what happened with the overall paid edit effort btw. Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• I am surprised, disappointed, and dismayed to find Econlib on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#econlib.org Spam-blacklist]. (Who added it?) This is a step well beyond RS analysis or discussion. Is Econlib mentioned on the WP:RSNB? Was there any discussion anywhere? Absolutely not. Instead we read that Econlib is an "agenda driven source"; therefore, a widespread campaign to remove all Econlib-linked references citing REFSPAM, SPS, PRIMARY, LINKFARM, agenda driven, polemical, libertarian, libertarian think tank, free market think tank, and other ersatz rationales to remove the links in undertaken. Never mind the fact that Econlib's Concise Encyclopedia of Economics contains original articles by highly respected professors, authors, and Nobel Prize laureates ([http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/HumanCapital.html#abouttheauthor Gary Becker] and [http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Information.html#abouttheauthor Joseph Stiglitz]). The removals are not confined to Further reading or External links sections. Swept-up in the purge are in-line citations and material from Econlib and other sources (such as Cato Institute and Pittsburgh Tribune). The original motivation may have been to clear out contributions by Vipul, but was Vipul ever warned about spamming? (Yes, once in 2013 and again earlier this month.) Talk about "agenda driven" – the ideas and scholarship presented by Econlib are of secondary importance. Instead, agenda-driven objections about "dark money", "political activism", "conceal[ed] sources of funding", etc. are motivating this effort to censor WP. – S. Rich (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the discussion. It could be blacklisting is too heavy handed.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I've always been told that secondary sources is what makes something notable. So if paper XYZ has a reasonable number of citations from non-spammy other papers in (say) Google Scholar, it's ok for Wikipedia even though the journal that it's in might not have the best possible provenance. Therefore, I'd ask people to check for inbound citations before taking out a reference that they have doubts about. I agree that links to public domain materials should go to repositories like Gutenberg rather than to partisan web sites, when possible. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

SportsLair

This user is just not getting it. also. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: I think it's going to take a bit more detail than that mate? — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Well, I was just going through the contribs, seemed clear to me. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Look at the edit-summary, and the previous ANI. I am going to final-warn SportsLair. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Thank you. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Right... I assumed they were merely quoting from Goodfellas: [57].It would certainly need a fair bit of contextualizing to justify it, I have to say. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems that MLpearc is still losing it. I'm usually a fan of various film franchises, and I've been posting notices about the 400-700 word rule on various film articles, but the rollbacker is on the mend for mass-reverting on that topic also. Per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries for most film articles should be within 400-700 words, but he saying that I have to discuss mass additions beforehand. SportsLair (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@SportsLair: To add this to an article with this type of issues is fine, to add this to all like pages requires consensus. - Mlpearc (open channel) 13:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anymore of this cat and mouse game. After three days, it looks like the everything is coming clean here. But if anything else happens, we would be glad to keep you guys posted. Until then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportsLair (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hard to detect mobile vandalism

Thanks to the outsourcing of content to sister projects, some prominent vandalism is much harder to detect and gets reverted slower. For example, earlier today the mobile viewers (nearly 50% of all views) of Pablo Picasso saw the following (yellow emphasis mine):

.

The problem is that this vandalism can not be easily detected enwiki, as it is not to be found in the page history of Picasso, nor in "related changes". Which meant that this vandalism on a not-really osbcure page was only reverted after 20 minutes.

Mind you, the same happens on even more popular pages (all examples at the same yellow spot beneath the page title), e.g. Superman had in January the description "UGLY" for 74 minutes, and "Patataman" for 24 minutes in February. Also in February, Iran had the label "العراق" which apparently means Iraq... This lasted for more than 10 hours! Benito Mussolini has had the label "Sir Beg Nose ito" for 11 days in February, "Benito musul8" for nearly an hour in March, "Benito Camela" for nearly seven hours in March, and "Benito desgraciao" for 12 hours in March as well. Elizabeth II was turned into "Elizabeth IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII" for five hours in February.

This kind of vandalism seems to be fairly common and relatively long-lasting (considering that the pages it occurs on are not that obscure). It is hard to detect on enwiki, and most people who do notice will not be able to correct it as they won't know where it originates.

What would be the best method to solve this fundamentally? Fram (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: It would help to know which sister project experienced the vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If you see this kind of vandalism, you can click 'Wikidata item' on the left hand side, under Tools, to be taken to the page that was vandalised. Sam Walton (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Wikidata (but the effects are on enwiki, hence the report here). Note that it isn't just vandalism: Brexit, a page with some 200,000 pageviews per month, says as it first line "The United Kingdom's prospective withdrawal from the European Union is widely known as Brexit". But when you see that page through the mobile view, like about 100,000 people do per month, it starts suddenly with "political aim of some advocacy groups, individuals and political parties in the United Kingdom" which is a bit ridiculous for something decided by referendum and voted in parliament. It is not the aim of some advocacy groups, it is reality, whether we like it or not. There is no reason I can see that the mobile version starts with an extra line of off-wiki content that the "standard" view of the article omits. Fram (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata stores a description for each article, and that is displayed atop every mobile article. I've removed Brexit's. — Train2104 (t • c) 14:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The reason why I asked is order to solve the problem, we need to know where the problem is coming from. And you're right, regarding the mobile version. Getting rid of that "functionality" should probably be proposed at the Village Pump. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I remember bringing up this exact concern on Mediawikiwiki and Phabricator, about the way the Wikidata description sounds like it is part of enwiki when it isn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• So let me get this straight - the mobile view of wikipedia is displaying content not on the the wikipedia article - pulled straight from wikidata? Is this an article-level thing from the mobile view? Or is it a function of the mobile-viewer itself? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It's probably a function of the mobile viewer itself. If I look at this page, I see "community discussion page for asking for administrators' intervention on user problems that may result in blocks" atop it. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Mobileviewer is effectively a mediawiki extension installed at en.wp is it not? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with vandalism is usually (at least in part) an admin problem, and this kind of vandalism may well end up at AIV. But it's a kind of vandalism we (as admins) can't really deal with, because we can't reverse it onwiki, and we can't block the vandals either. I first wanted to hear other editors (admins and non-admins) views on this before seeing where this should be raised (if it should be raised at all, perhaps there is an onwiki solution or I was overreacting). Fram (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

(non-admin view) I fail to see why a mobile user needs to see content that I can't, and as you say it creates an increased exposure to vandalism. So it seems to me there should be a VP discussion about removing that, per NeilN. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it a local setting though in the mobile viewer (something someone with the appropriate permissions can alter on EN-WP for all incoming traffic), or is it hard-coded into the mobile viewer extension? Because no matter how much the community complains, there is no way mobile viewer will be disabled in any fashion. If its something that can be easily altered on-wiki however, even if its a scripting hack.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The mobile viewer doesn't have to be disabled. Just tweaked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Which is what I was trying to get at - a local setting like below would only need an onwiki change, if its something that cannot be altered without altering the mobile extension via the WMF, ultimately short of threatening to disable it, the WMF has historically been resistant to changes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This did it for me, I would assume if placed in common.js (or mobile.js?) it would do it for everyone. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• So mobile reading is at Mobile. Poking around, it appears (!) that the decision to use the Wikidata descriptor (the field that was vandalized, I believe) was noted at this phab thread (although that is a beta version....)

Loads of people view en-WP via mobile (data is here) and in my view this issue is important; I am unaware if there was ever a discussion about replacing content generated by the en-WP comunity with Wikidata content in mobile (not via the app, just mobile viewing through a browser) views of en-WP. I am unhappy about that. But hopefully it was discussed? If so would love to read that discussion.

Pinging User:OVasileva (WMF), who runs the WMF reading team. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a good example; apparently- on the mobile viewer- he has a boyfriend, which (equally apparently) the subject denies. An unsourced BLPVIO like that would useually be sandblasted out of existence by now- especially after multiple TP requests. WTF is happening. Is it that ****ing Wikidata forcing this crap on us? I don't know why we have to put up with that- we could end up hosting libel and be unable to remedy it. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fram and Sam Walton: I edited it out via the thing on the left, so that's that article resolved- although, of course, the broader issues still stand. Thanks very much for the information and advice here. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

yes you did! diff at Wikidata Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog, reckon this could be the beginning of a long editing career on wikidata for me ;) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 06:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

"Wikidata forcing this crap on us". You mean like Commons forces their image crap on us ? That seems like a rather insular view of our communities, where your own prejudices are the problem instead of wikidata. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so external crap being shown on enwiki is "your own prejudices are the problem". That's helpful, thanks! Foot has since 7 January had the label "anatomical structure fertebrates" (sic), apart from twelve hours (!) in February when it had the label "bullshit". And this is caused by our prejudices. When an image gets changed, it is usually bloody obvious where the problem originates. And we can upload a local copy and protect that one (like is or was being done for mainspace images). But if Commons vandalism would cause problems here, feel free to start a separate section. However, apparently we may not raise an issue with Wikidata simply because Commons exists as well? Even though Commons is identical information across all languages, while the English language label is language-specific information which thus has no reason to be hosted on Wikidata and could just as well have been hosted here, with less potential for these problems and friction. Fram (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope that's not at all what that was about. I simply vehemently oppose a view of 'either you listen to the English Wikipedia right-now, or F-off'. I object to hostile intonations like "[our sisters] are forcing this crap on us", the usage of ultimatums and a general expression of elitism amongst the larger and older projects. I prefer more constructive contributions, but it seems that wherever contributions are different from the contributions people make themselves, there is a very low tolerance towards imperfections and a high level of destructive criticism. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Search sample

I should note that my little hack does not hide the descriptions from the mobile search results, where it provides a pretty helpful service to the reader. One possible workaround would be to have descriptions be defined via a metatemplate on enwiki, and then have a bot enforce that wikidata matches it. — Train2104 (t • c) 18:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem isn't with the individual reader, the problem is that Wikidata appears to be forcing information into en.wiki via the mobile app, over which en.wiki has no formal control. I agree with Fram and Jytdog's concern about this, and second the suggestion that a VP discussion seems to be in order. (And I do remember that this issue was brought up at the time, and ignored.) It's one thing to play whack-a-mole against socks, but another thing completely to do it because of a systemic dysfunctionality in the software. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken it is not just the app - WP appears differently on a browser on a mobile, than it does on a desktop. If you are at a desktop here is picasso: Picasso and here it is, on a mobile: Mobile view Picasso (there is a link at the bottom of every page to the mobile view) Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I know that, I've accessed the encyclopedia on my phone. I don't think that the difference is a significant issue, as long as the content is the same. It's the insertion of content not vetted by en.wiki editors which concerns me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This is particularly problematic on BLP's (as they can sue) but the potential for abuse elsewhere is huge. We cant have information from a project which has none of the safeguards Wikipedia's policies protect against - being presented as if it was 'Wikipedia'. I mean, imagine if someone added an item to Vaccines at wikidata saying 'Known to cause autism'... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the inclusion of an "edit" link on enwiki which takes one straight to the correct section on Wikidata to update the description? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC).

That is only a fix after the fact. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with the descriptions, but I agree that if I could see them at the top of their Wikipedia article with a little button to go and edit, that would be much more preferable to simply not knowing what's being displayed without manually checking for each article. Sam Walton (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• I just posted notice of this at VPT: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Discussion_at_ANI_about_Wikidata_use_in_mobile_view Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T161596

• I created T161596 which I hope would go some way to fixing this problem. Sam Walton (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. Personally, I don't think those short descriptions are a bad thing, I quite like them when using the WP app, but they should show up on the desktop view as well Regards SoWhy 10:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

And they should be stored and edited on enwiki, not on wikidata, to make it much easier to control them. They are language-specific anyway, so no reason to host them elsewhere. A specific template could be introduced, and initially a bot could even copy the existing ones from Wikidata if people judge this useful. But this would mean that a change to the label would be immediately traceable and correctable here, and the vandal blocked or the page locked or whatever would be necessary. Fram (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Consider unintended consequences. Like we don't already spend way too much time agonizing over first sentences? We shouldn't add this largely redundant blurb simply because it would be "nice to have". ―Mandruss ☎ 12:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, as an extra "first line" of the article, I totally agree. But as a subtext in searches (search box), it may be a useful feature (I wouldn't shed a tear if we don't have this at all, but I can see an argument for it in search. Not in article display mode though, no matter if it is mobile or not). Fram (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Side query - does this appear in the google snippets stuff at the side of google searches? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes (well, I'm 99% certain, confirmation would be nice). Fram (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, at least we don't use Wikidata data for most of our articles. Wikipedia versions which were faster and less critical in embracing this progress have just for half an hour proclaimed that Muhammad (a rather essential and often viewed article) was born in 296 in Constantinople, and died in the 2000s (so hardly subtle vandalism). And Tower Bridge (also not a really obscure article) is still being claimed to be a 5 metre long French bridge in wood, opened in 2017! So far, this vandalism has remained in place for 40 minutes. Vandalism on enwiki also can remain for too long, but rarely will vandalism this blatant on articles with this profile remain for so long. On Wikidata, this seems to be the standard. And that's what we send to Google, mobile users, and in many languages many or most infoboxes. Great... Fram (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Look, this will require an RfC on Wikidata, or maybe as a cross-wiki issue on Meta. I highly doubt we'll be able to solve it here by ourselves. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Possibly there are technological fixes that we can put in place, but there's still an issue around vandalism protection in Wikidata that needs to be addressed here. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I see zero improvement after OP by Fram. First of all, of course, why is this not huge at WP:VPT, d:Wikidata chat, wiki-mobile or whichever WMF/MW level? Addressing anonymous editors at ANI won't help. Now, people can edit enwiki page without a Reader being able to correct (edit) that. That is not wiki. So why is this not an site issue? -DePiep (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey :) Thanks for pinging, User:StevenJ81. Data quality is a big topic for me And Wikidata as whole. It is ongoing work. We've been working on tools to improve it over the past year or two. The biggest thing we've done is probably ORES support for Wikidata. I wrote this in 2015 to explain my general thinking about data quality. What we are working on right now to further improve data quality is improving our constraints checks. When this is done you will see little notifications next to problematic statements so editors can look into them quickly. This will have an API so I am sure we can build additional tools on top of it. As for Wikidata descriptions being shown on Wikipedia: I have and continue to advocate for making sure you can edit them when they are shown. That is however not part of my team's work. I hope that helps. Happy to answer further questions. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): No amount of data quality tools or constraints or little notifications will make any difference to the item description on Wikidata, because the design leaves no means to apply constraints or any means of verification to that text. Until descriptions are natively editable on Wikipedia, or can be replaced by locally-supplied text, they should not be forced into English Wikipedia articles. Do you agree? --RexxS (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said I believe it is very important and have advocated for it but at the end of the day it is not my call to make. I don't have all the information leading to the current decision. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, thank you for tagging these issues - these levels of vandalism are concerning - we’re interested in providing some background on the feature to help the brainstorming process on solutions.

A bit of background for context:

• The wikidata descriptions feature displays the wikidata description of an article (if available) under the article title.  The feature was introduced to the mobile website as a way to provide an at-a-glance descriptor of the subject of the article, which may often be obscured due to the location of the infobox. The in-article descriptions were developed as a follow-up to the in-search descriptions that have been available on the mobile website since Oct 2015.  For more information about the background and motivations for the feature, check out the wikidata descriptions page  The feature was initially tested on Catalan and Polish wikipedias and rolled out in stages to ensure sufficient time for gathering community consensus through each rollout.  For enwiki, the feature has been available since January, 2017 following a short conversation on the enwiki village pump. 

In terms of tracking the changes to these descriptions, the Wikidata team has been focusing on creating easier ties between Wikidata and Wikipedia. Currently:

1. Edits do show up in recent changes and watchlist if the user has enabled it and is using the non-enhanced recent changes setting (Phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T108688, https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T90436)
2. Edits do not show up in recent changes and watchlist if the user is using the recent changes setting (Phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T46874) 
3. Edits do not show up in the article history (Phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T42358 )

(in addition to the above) In terms of allowing edits on Wikipedia:

• Currently the android team has built a way of editing wikidata descriptions from within the app - more information on the short descriptions page as well as the project page in phabricator We’re currently rolling it out as a pilot on three languages and our plan is to measure and evaluate the interest for this feature on the apps before approaching the solution for mobile web - we’re curious to know if there is any interest in pursuing a similar solution for the mobile website? Some of our initial mockups and ideas for the mobile website can be found in this phabricator task

@Samwalton9 and SoWhy: - thank you for your ideas on incorporating these features into desktop - this isn’t something we’ve considered so far, but we’re open to suggestions. Are there any more thoughts/ideas around how incorporating the feature into desktop could help editors identify potential vandalism?  Any other thoughts in general? OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it matters which particular database this information is stored in, but I do endorse the idea that it needs to be easy to see it and change it from this particular site. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC).

(non-admin view) Could there just be a template at the top of every article that stores the one line description? For example, the article for Donald Trump would have, say, {{description|text=45th President of the United States of America}} at the top of the article. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

That would have been the much better solution. There is no reason at all why anything language-specific should be at Wikidata. Wikidata is for common elements, not for text snippets in language X or Y.

@OVasileva (WMF): "this isn’t something we’ve considered so far" That's not entirely true, however such a consideration might predate your product ownership. Part of the problem here is that WMF has a history of testing out something for an audience, without considering or being willing to put the work in to include other audiences. This also shows in the strange separation of products in reading and editing teams, which creates a separation of audiences within products that simply doesn't exist. What readers do, what mobile users do, affects other editors. Dumping a feature in the mobile app, should come with the immediate signal and warning that at some point in the not too distant future you will have to consider how that effects desktop, vandal fighters etc. See also: User:Risker/Risker's checklist for content-creation extensions. Releasing something on mobile, should mean the immediate prioritisation of follow up tasks for desktop (if only to by way of research conclude that no action is required). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@OVasileva (WMF) and Melamrawy (WMF):, the main thrust of the discussion is not to roll this problem out to desktop as well, but to remove it from mobile view. "Edits do show up in recent changes and watchlist if the user has enabled it and is using the non-enhanced recent changes setting " is all very well when you a) have the article on your watchlist and b) have enabled this (I had, and have disabled it again as being 99% useless clutter for me, with missing descriptions or not even showing the last change at Wikidata). But when you come to an article and see that it has been vandalized, you should then be able to find in the article history who did this, and revert (and block) them. Or if it happens often, protect the page. None of this is possible or helpful at the moment on enwiki. This is splitting the administration and editing over two sites with no benefits, and thus is a very bad idea. Please turn off the "show labels from Wikidata", and then start a thorough discussion about this to see whether it is wanted, useful, logical, an improvement, or not. Fram (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I note from the linked pages above that at this most recent Mediawiki discussion User:RexxS, who can not be suspected of being anti-Wikidata, made basically the same suggestions and arguments. This was seven months ago, and in typical WMF fashion they agreed with him and then went on with the poor implementation regardless. Luckily, I see that "If there are any problems with the feature, we have a configuration switch built as part of the feature so that we can turn it off very quickly if there are any problems, at any phase."[58] so turning this off very quickly now that "any problems" have been shown should happen. Thanks! Fram (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm 100% with Fram on this one. I admit to having spent a lot of effort in recent times in trying to find ways that we can make use of Wikidata in Wikipedia, but one fundamental design principle for me has always been that local editors must be able to override a Wikidata value with a local value. It is disappointing that the very people at WMF who ought to be promoting the sensible use of Wikidata can make such an obvious blunder as to use the Wikidata description as a sub-heading in mobile view for the English Wikipedia. By pushing ahead against the advice even of sympathetic editors and causing unfixable problems, they put at risk all the other good work that is going on to make use of Wikidata in a consensus manner. The problem is far wider-reaching than mere vandalism: you can see at User talk:RexxS/Archive 32 #Wikidata... that the addition of a description like "American-born Greek operatic soprano" can easily breach our BLP policies by ascribing ethnicities, or religious affiliations, etc. to living subjects who have not self-identified as such, and for which no reliable sources are available. The description on Wikidata is wholly unsourced – and not capable of being associated with a source – and has no place in an English Wikipedia article unless it can be replaced by text from within Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Focus

We can handwring over the many bigger issues later -- There is one key question for this incident board, and that is: How do we get the WMF Reading team to close this vulnerability to BLP violations by removing this from mobile views, now? I don't know what we can do but folks over there appear to have persistently disregarded clueful advice. We indef people here in en-WP who persistently violate policy. This may be kind of radical but maybe we need to indef the WMF Reading team from en-WP or something. That would not really fix it, but maybe it would get their attention. If not, then what? Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I just opened an RfC: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Rfc:_Remove_description_taken_from_Wikidata_from_mobile_view_of_en-WP -- Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Update: User:OVasileva (WMF) posted at the RfC and said that they are turning this off and asked for feedback about "blockers". I have withdrawn the RfC, which was focused simply on supporting or opposing a request to turn this off, and I suggested that they open a new RfC targeted at obtaining information they want from the en-WP community. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Carliertwo and Siouxsie and the Banshees (again)

In January I opened an ANI thread (archived here), concerning Carliertwo and their editing of articles related to the music group Siouxsie and the Banshees. My intention had been for the community to examine the whole approach of this user, but unfortunately the thread was closed after focusing on one specific incident (Carliertwo not respecting the result of an RfC). My concern is that this user is not interested in Wikipedia being a neutral and balanced source of information, rather they are using Wikipedia as a platform for echoing their own views as a Siouxsie Sioux fan. I write this as someone who owns several records by the group, so I am not a hater of the band seeking to attack them (quite the contrary); I am simply attempting to ensure Wikipedia's coverage of them is neutral. Currently this is not possible, because Carliertwo has a stranglehold over all articles connected with Siouxsie Sioux, and removes all content that does not chime with their own enthusiasm for the band. Comments made about this user at that first thread include the following: "it looks to me like ownership doesn't even begin to describe the contribution count: it is literally all for the band, like some sort of dedicate social media account to ensure that this group is always portrayed in a positive light" (TomStar81), "Carliertwo is not respecting the consensus outcome of the RfC and they are edit warring. The comment on your talk page does have the tone of ownership" (MrX), and "It is pretty damning evidence of being a SPA when all you do is edit on a specific band to achieve your specific POV" (TheGracefulSlick).

Incidents that have made me open this issue again are the following (the third example is the most revealing):

• 1) Although there had just been an RfC (that I opened) that concluded that the phrase "Tinderbox would be later hailed by the lead singer of Suede, Brett Anderson on his website" should not be included in the Tinderbox article, Carliertwo immediately opens another RfC, this time asking whether the phrase "In 2011, Brett Anderson, the lead singer of Suede, included Tinderbox on a list of albums that he called "current fascinations" should be included in the article.[59]
• 2) In the article about the album Kaleidoscope, I adjusted a review quote so that it reflected the overall tone of the review (i.e. qualified praise) [60]. Carliertwo has reverted this three times ([61] [62] [63]), each time replacing the overall summary with cherry-picked praise of 2 particular tracks.
• 3) I found a very critical review, written by Julie Burchill in the NME, of the album The Scream. I found it remarkable that our article didn't have this review in the 'Critical reception' section, though it did contain long positive comments about the album made by other NME journalists, just not the actual official NME review. So I added a quote from the review [64]. Carliertwo reverted this, stating that I must have found the review on a fansite, and hence I couldn't "advance the veracity" of Burchill's article [65]. So, I added a link to a scan of the review in a copy of NME Originals [66]. Carliertwo reverted this and replaced it with an attack on Burchill's review that is almost hysterical in tone [67], at the same time denying readers the possibility of even reading a quote from Burchill's review.

I am very concerned about the actions of this editor and think that, while they continue to treat Wikipedia as a mouthpiece for reflecting their own views, it will be impossible for any Wikipedia article about Siouxsie Sioux (and related subjects) to achieve any kind of neutrality. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Defense: reply of Carliertwo: Introduction

• Definition and difference between a SPA and a Stewardship. A "wp:Stewardship of an article (or group of related articles) may be the result of a sincere personal interest in the subject matter or an interest in a cause or organization related to the article's subject matter. The editor might also be an expert on the subject matter, or otherwise very knowledgeable of the topic, and able to provide credible insights for locating reliable sources. "
• 1) For your information, I almost entirely wrote a wp:GA for Join Hands. I have made a huge research to create section about legacy, finding the right quotes. All the legacy sections on these SATB related articles have been written by me, I let you measure the good work at Siouxsie Sioux article. [68]]. If you want to get rid of a good contributor who has historical content, you have to have this in mind.
• 2) A 2nd RFC on Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album) for including a different sentence while using the same source was discussed a few months ago: my version was accepted with a wp:consensus [[69]]. Palecloudedwhite didn't mention I have a consensus, he wants a revenge apparently.
• 3) For The Scream (album) article, I have added secondary sources as Julie Burchill's review was seen as controversial by many critics. These secondary sources are by legendary John Peel DJ, biographer Brian Jones and I can add another one from Paul Morley who also highly criticized Burchill's review two months later in the NME. Julie Burchill is a journalist known for writing with venom about all the punk and post-punk bands, secondary sources are perfectly valid in this case. So, where is the wp:OR  ? Comment about Pale, Pale had initially used a reference from a fansite where he took the title of the review "Well, what would Edvard Munch have said.", which meant he hadn't checked back then the veracity of the review and didn't own the original (mistakes of sources are common on fansite). Yesterday, he found a reproduction of the article on a NME reissue which doesn't mention the title of the review anymore "well, what would Edvard Munch have said. So that's why he withdrew the title "Well, what would Edvard Munch have said" ffrom the source. I was right but Pale forgot to present you this important fact. Now, it is still said in the article, that in the same paper, Julie Burchill published a scathing review, later judged as this by her peers as I have explained it with sources in the article.
• 4) For Kaleidoscope (Siouxsie and the Banshees album), I included a source with quote from the Melody Maker, Pale wanted to change it, I don't consider this idea better. Regarding The Scream (album) and Kaleidoscope (Siouxsie and the Banshees album)', there are talks to discuss.
• 5) PaleCloudedWhite is not far to be a group hater, I invite you to read the hysterical tone he used here [70] : on 1 February 2017 he wrote: "Boy George writes in his autobiography about meeting Siouxsie Sioux when he was youn of me and the bandger, and says, {{She was haughty, irritated by those attempting to brush with greatness. The new punk stars were every bit as puffed up as the seventies rock dinosaurs they despised", then presumably it's absolutely OK to add this, plus any other quotes I find in primary sources, to the Siouxsie Sioux article}}? ". It is his frame of mind.
• 6) Concerning the review, Pale also wanted to include this pure bashing "the sound of suet pudding" out of the blue which shows Pale's agenda. We never included pure hatred from critics inside quotes for wp:neutrality. Carliertwo (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Well I'm thrilled to see nothing has changed. I'm thinking editing restrictions (like topic banned, broadly construed, from anything remotely related to the band). Who be with me? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Why ? Pale forgot to tell you he lost the 2nd rfc which ended with a consensus saying the source is valuable. Now, Is there a consensus at the talk of the Scream? The review is still mentioned and there are secondary sources from very famous people who criticized Burchill's work. see below . for TomStar81 You entirely have to read the defense before banning and I hadn't written it yet Carliertwo (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support TomStar81's proposal - I faintly remember this discussion in January and share Star's "thrill" that nothing has changed. Readers deserve the full story about the band (and their albums/singles) so it is terribly unfair to censor reviews just because they are contrary to one editor's personal preferences.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Why ? Pale forgot to tell you he lost the 2nd rfc which ended with a consensus saying the source is valuable. Now, Is there a consensus at the talk of the Scream? The review is still mentioned and there are secondary sources from very famous people who criticized Burchill's work. see below . for TheGracefulSlick You entirely have to read the defense before banning and I hadn't written it yet Carliertwo (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The NME thing is blatant evidence they are incapable of editing neutrally in this area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

See below. the review is still mentioned. for Only in death. You entirely have to read the defense before banning and I hadn't written it yet before your ban. Carliertwo (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I didnt vote support because the review is/is not in the article, I voted support because you thought this edit was an appropriate response to someone criticising your pet band. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I've just had to revert (most of) this editor's large changes to Mogwai, as well. Nothing ridiculous, but they'd merged sections in the article into one without any reason whatsoever. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - As someone who also listens to this group, I can say without a doubt that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, and most (if not all) claims should be backed with reliable sources. The same goes for all articles. However, what I can also say is that editing a specific set of articles does not automatically make the user an SPA. Most editors stick to articles about their interests to begin with. DarkKnight2149 23:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

So by not replying by an oppose, you let them ban me, and let these peoplewho are not aware of the agenda of this group hater, and don't care at all of all the massive work with sources that I have made on wikipedia, win de facto. Darkknight2149 Carliertwo (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me put it this way - If they're goal is to make the group look bad, they should not be editing Siouxsie articles. At the same time, if your goal is promote them, neither should you.

Also, sources are absolutely necessary, but it is possible to use them and not be neutral. I'm not going to "pick a side" (for lack of a better term) here since I don't have a history with anyone involved and don't know what is characteristic of their or your behaviour. DarkKnight2149 00:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I have added secondary sources from John Peel and a biographer but apparently you haven't seen them at The Scream (album). Do you mind clicking on this link or is it too much to ask [71] ? He doesn't have anything to prove that I am not neutral whereas I have one against him as he included the non neutrality quote "The sound of a suet pudding". Darkknight2149 Carliertwo (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support Editor is wasting all of our time here with this nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

As Tarage has never contributed to any historical content on wikipedia apart discussing banning on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and writing on talks, their voice is more than measured. Carliertwo (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Adorable. I'll look forward to seeing your block log then. --Tarage (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This is rich, you wrote that my contributions are nonsense whereas I wrote a GA and the valuable content/good sources of these articles were written by me. Judging people without knowing their work is a speciality from you. Thanks for confirming that your pleasure is seeing good contributors being banned. Carliertwo (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You can stop the personal attacks and digging your hole any time now buddy. --Tarage (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Important CommentSurprisingly, three users had already given a ban without even reading the defense, without even seeing I have added secondary sources and the Julie Burchill's NME review is still mentioned in article. Carliertwo (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• as this ANI is canvassed, could well known users of the SATB articles write their point of view about my work and the umerous volume I have added on wikipedia ? Gentlecollapse6, Greg Fasolino, Woovee, J Milburn, LessHeard vanU, SilkTork, If you want to get rid of a good contributor because of a witch hunt begun by a group hater who is against my person and refuses to swallow that he lost a 2nd rfc against me by a consensus, it is your choice. Carliertwo (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Carliertwo this ANI was not canvassed. He was quoting us so it is appropriate to ping us when our edits are mentioned. You, on the other hand, did just canvass a group of editors. You also keep called PaleWhite a "group hater" just because he added a review from a somewhat controversial, but notable, critic.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Would you explain us why people who know all my good work, could not write here whereas Pale's first RFC was cancelled by a 2nd rfc with a consensus for my version which means that his first ANI was retrospectively abusive and was just a witch hunt. He thought to include bashing from Boy George about this group (see the quote in green above) and now in the article about The Scream, he wants to include bashing such as "the sound of a suet pudding" where is the neutrality? Have you read my secondary sources from legendary John Peel and biographer of the group? No you didn't obviously. All the Burchill's quote he added was a manoeuvre to include this derogatory term about the album "the sound of a suet pudding", no neutrality. TheGracefulSlick --- Carliertwo (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick failed to address anything about the following points: the fact that there are secondary sources for Burchill's review and the fact that Burchill's review is still mentioned in the article. Carliertwo (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Carlietwo I'd be happy to as soon as you address the multiple non-neutral ANI notices you sent to friendly users calling PaleWhite a "hater". Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

TheGraceFulSlick doesn't even know what a wp:stewardship means. I note the refusal to discuss'and reply about why the reason of banning is justified whereas Burchill's review is still included in the article and widely commented by secondary sources with experts such as John Peel. TheGraceFulSlick also supports the idea of including a bashing of Boy George towards this group by Pale, which is trivial content and she also supports the inclusion of a non neutral quote by Burchill such as "the sound of suet pudding". Carliertwo (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Carliertwo please do not put words in my mouth or question my competence. I have edited much more music articles than I can count so I think I know a thing or two. I said I'd be happy to discuss when you address why you think it is okay to canvass editors.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You accused me to be a SPA and you don't even know that the rfc for which the previous ANI was created against me, was later cancelled by a new consensus. Are you sure you are of good faith ? without mentioning that you hadn't even waited to get my defense before voting for a ban. Read my wp:GA about Join Hands, and read the first comment of Darkknight2149 above and ponder. Then when you'll have thought about this, I will be happy to discuss. TheGracefulSlick. don't worry people have a brain and the users that post on SATB related articles will not take for granted my subjective comment. They will judge facts and the content of articlesCarliertwo (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have got a lot of difficulties to believe that contacting you, an user who accused me of being a SPA in an ANI opened for a RFC which has been cancelled, is not canvassing. Knowing that you don't know anything of my edits of the SATB related articles. But you said, that contacting people who do contribute on articles about music and who didn't take part to the previous ANI concerning me, is canvassing. This is rich. TheGracefullSlick. Carliertwo (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I really enjoy when an editor accuses me of competency issues, lack of good faith, and insinuates I do not have a brain: all without a single diff! I'm just going to wait for other editors to jump in (hopefully some you didn't canvas) because this is no longer very productive.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

No I said that the people I contacted on their page won't take for granted that I consider Pale close to be a band hater and wanting to take a revenge for losing a 2nd rfc against me. People will take a look at the edits, they are users of music related articles. However you can't denied accusing me being a SPA, the quote is above, and you can't denied voting for my ban far before I posted someting here today. Whatever I post, you don't mind. All the things I have said are wrong according to you apparently. I was just asking which point of my defense reply you agree with and which one you disagree.Carliertwo (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick I have just read what canvassing was really about, and withdrew all my edits at the talks of people who edit at music related articles and replaced the message by another short neutral notice. I'm new at ANI. Anyway, you're gonna win and could feast your victory with a cup of champagne in a few days. Congratulations. Thanks for your kind messages and at least admitting well accepting to admit a bit that Burchill's review was "controversial". I guess it is a satisfaction for me. I presume you're gonna let Pale erase all this part and let him doing what did he say earlier "denying readers the possibility of even reading a quote from Burchill's review", well in this case "denying readers the possibility of even reading from Burchill's" peers who were skeptical of her work. Carliertwo (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. You are mistaken, I'm not here to "win" anything. You're continued attitude at article talk pages [72] and your sarcasm with me suggests why you need a topic ban. By the way, your comment in the diff I provided mischaracterized PaleWhite for no reason whatsoever.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

"Which diff you provided" are you talking about ? I disagree with your attitude. If banning a good contributor without any warning is normal, I don't think this is measured. Carliertwo (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ugh...the diff in my last comment. And here is what I was pointing to specifically: "Pale's will to include a derogatory term such as 'The Sound of suet pudding' shows how his frame of mind. Be ready to see him post plenty of negative, things on SATB articles shortly and in the forthcoming years". I guess I also need to ask you to stop "thanking" me for my edits which you know pings me like an actual ping.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ban+block NPOV, edit warring, bludgeon, and attacking other editors for their lack of brainpower. This editor clearly has a boen to pick with others over anything. That attack on Tarage was pretty poor. A few weeks perhaps? L3X1 (distant write) 03:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ban from what, do you want me to never edit again on SATB related articles knowing that I have been adding all the good quotes, content and sources from 10 years, and seeing that I entirely wrote a GA ? In a limited time or endlessly and is being a stewardship allowed ? When there is war editing on an article The steps are usually, request demand for a third opinion, discussion, rfc and then if a rfc is not respected an ANI. Canvassing is when you contact people to get support. Pale contacted people from the previous ANI to support him, so I asked neutral people to write their point of view. Another question, will the secondary sources be erased whereas they are comments from John Peel who is the number specialist of music in England ? for L3X1. And have you read all my defense reply above the comments Carliertwo (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note The canvassing continues. Blackmane (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• note I just read what is canvassing, I thought it was contacting people. I am a newbie at ANI, never been interested by banning attack judging, people. So I'm gonna erase the messages at pages of people I contact to only post a neutral note. Carliertwo (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• After reading through the examples given, and Carliertwo's general editing, I can see the reason for concern. Sadly, Carliertwo's story is fairly common - we are urged to look out for paid editing, but I find our main weakness is unpaid editing by subject enthusiasts who seek to praise their subject a little too much. Yet the bulk of Wikipedia is built by such enthusiasts. The majority of articles on certain popular subjects, be it video games or pop music, have a positive bias. Putting in the neutral balance is the job of neutral editors who come along after the fans have created the article and provided the bulk of the material. And it is the responsibility of all experienced editors to explain to the fans what is happening and why we need to do this. Mostly this is accepted. In Carliertwo's case it seems it is not. Fighting to put back in a trivial, non-encyclopaedic and undue sentence that Brett Anderson liked Tinderbox is not the sort of behaviour we wish to see. On the other hand, the edit warring in Kaleidoscope is two sided. Carliertwo did not completely revert the adjust - the phrasing "Paulo Hewitt gave the album qualified praise" was left intact. During the edit conflict PaleCloudedWhite did not attempt to discuss the matter on the article talkpage or Carliertwo's talkpage, but continued to edit war. I don't think topic banning Carliertwo is an appropriate solution, because I'm not seeing sufficient reason for that. I do think though that it needs to be stressed to Carliertwo that we are not a fan website, and that what we are trying to do is write neutral, balanced and informative articles on Siouxsie and the Banshees for all readers, which means including the negative and the positive in appropriate amounts; which means that we don't cherry pick reviews for the bits we like best, but we aim to give an accurate summary of what was written' which means that if another editor adds material or questions what you are doing, you engage in a discussion as to the best way forward. But this also applies to other editors as well. As experienced editors it is our role to reach out to and explain things to newer or less experienced or knowledgeable editors. We don't shout at them, ban them, or block them, we assist them to understand the Wikipedia way. That way everyone wins. If any editor continues to misbehave after advice has been given, that's when we come in with the heavy stuff. Looking at Carliertwo's history, he has made mistakes, and been given advice. That happens to all of us. There has been a few comments regarding ownership of Siouxsie and the Banshees articles, but not to the level of a ban or a block. I think what is needed here is to let Carliertwo be aware that the community wants cooperation from all editors, and that articles must be neutral in tone. Any concerns are to be discussed rather than fought over. If Carliertwo can acknowledge that he now understands what the issue is, and promises to be more collegiate going forward, I think this matter can be closed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• I concur generally with what SilkTork' said and their recommendation. As an additional note, as someone who was worked on the Scream article in question, I would say that simply quoting a sourced review is sufficient. We do not need, and should not, add in an entire additional set of sources commenting on how a particular sourced review is invalid. It's irrelevant, for example, whether John Peel thinks Burchill's review was bad. That does come across like a "defense" of the band/record. If it hasn't already been edited down, it should be.Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Carliertwo's bias continues to show on his talk page. He also, again, accuses PaleWhite of bad faith without any proof whatsoever in the same edit.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I too am getting sick of this. If the user is only going to use their talk page as a means to attack other editors, I request that it be revoked for the duration of the block. They have provided nothing of substance to the argument since getting blocked. --Tarage (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The crucial sentence in SilkTork's comment above is "If Carliertwo can acknowledge that he now understands what the issue is", because at the moment I see no evidence of this. In their most recent post on their talkpage they state that they do not wish for a certain part of the above-mentioned NME review to be used because it "looks like an useless cherry on the cake used as a weapon by PaleCloudedwhite". A weapon? How is it possible to discuss additions to articles if these additions are regarded by this user as weapons? In the same post this user also advises another to "beware of Paleclouded's attitude and check his edits. I think that he has got tons of edits ready and once I'll be gone, he's going to present a pile of edits in the same vein." Oh, thanks for filling in my Wikipedia diary for me - I had been wondering what my future involved, and now I know. It seems to me that this editor regards editors who challenge them over SATB articles as enemies, and all sorts of nonsense ensues because of this. Just look at how my comment about Boy George became mangled; in the second Tinderbox RfC, I tried to illustrate the undesirable logical consequences of Carliertwo's argument by using a quote Boy George had made about Siouxsie Sioux, [73], but at the top of this thread Carliertwo throws this quote back as an example of my "frame of mind"? What? At the start of this thread I state clearly that I have records by the band and am not a hater of the band. Carliertwo's response? To canvass several editors, informing them I am a "group hater" and that "he wants to let us believe he is not a SATB hater and and doesn't have an agenda on wikipedia, waiting me to be banned and then adding negative critics and erasing good reviews". How is it possible to discuss articles - as SilkTork advises - with an editor who has such a bad-faith attitude? It would be great if blocks and bans can be avoided, but what is the alternative? Unproductive contorted stalemate situations with a user who from the outset regards people such as myself as enemies using 'weapons'? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

In an ideal world we would all get on with each other, agree all the time, and meet up for cherry pie and coffee, but sometimes there are awkward incidents, awkward individuals, and disagreements - that is the nature of Wikipedia editing. I understand your frustration, though there isn't a huge history of problems with this user. There have been minor mistakes made, and advice given. Most users have made mistakes. There has been some edit warring, but generally it takes at least two users to make an edit war. I'm not seeing that we have given this user sufficient guidance regarding the concerns with their editing and behaviour, nor am I seeing that their behaviour is sufficiently damaging to warrant a ban. While I agree with you that it was inappropriate to call a second RFC so close after the first one, and while I disagree with the outcome of that RFC, this is not a banning incident as this sort of thing happens all the time. Calling the RFC was not evil, and there were enough who supported not only the premise of the RFC, but also that it was called. Having an editorial disagreement is not evil. This happens all the time. We work through it. Sometimes this is tiresome, sometimes we learn that we were wrong, and most of the time the article is strengthened. I note that through all these problems that Carliertwo has worked toward a compromise. I find that encouraging rather than cause for a ban. We tend to only ban those who consistently refuse to listen to reason, and who make little or no attempt at compromise. Carliertwo is not perfect, but none of us are, and he is working in the right direction. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to implement a topic ban

Its been 24 hours since this thread was opened, and there does seem to be consensus that something more needs to be done about this problem since rattling the saber didn't work last time. Therefore, I propose that we move to adopt a measure that stating that Carliertwo is hereby topic banned from all articles on or related to Siouxsie and the Banshees, broadly construed, and that the topic ban shall be in place indefinitely with an option for Carliertwo to appeal the topic ban after a period of one year by petition for a review of the topic ban at ANI. @MrX, TheGracefulSlick, PaleCloudedWhite, Only in death, Black Kite, Darkknight2149, Tarage, L3X1, and Blackmane: You were either pinged here when this opened or have opined above that this is the best course action, so I am recalling you here to get your input on this proposal. Gentlecollapse6, Greg Fasolino, Woovee, J Milburn, LessHeard vanU, and SilkTork you were pinged here at Carliertwo's request. As it would be irresponsible of me to disregard Carliertwo's earlier insistence that you also be involved in this matter, I would like to invite you to weigh in this matter as well, in the spirit of AGF. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Conditional Support Enough already, we need to end this disruptive behavior. If Carliertwo isn't going to change then this option is the next best thing. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I want to make it clear here that I am not advocating for anything being done while Carliertwo is blocked, that would be unethical. I am merely moving forward with a proposal here to gauge the interest in topic ban. We will of course be patient and wait to hear back from the accused, as AGF necessitates. In the mean time, though, it would be beneficial to here back on the proposal insofar as its points relate to the case. It seemed we were agreed above that a topic ban would be a good idea, but I'm uncertain if an unblock condition would be a good idea. I'm also uncertain if it would be wise to debate the merits of revoking the topic ban at ANI. These points we can discuss without needing to wait for Carliertwo, as they are simply a matter of weighing the needs of the community against the allegations here. If we all agree on the points than the proposal then if the topic ban does turn out to the favored option we will be on the same page. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• I've just looked and note that Carliertwo is under a 48 hour block so is unable to respond here. If Carliertwo is able to reflect on the concerns raised, and give an assurance that he will discuss concerns rather than engaging in edit wars, that he will take on board that Wikipedia by the nature of what we are includes negative comments on subjects, even Siouxsie and the Banshees, and that he will abide by consensus, then a ban is not necessary. We should wait until Carliertwo is able to respond. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• I concur with SilkTork and would like to see Carliertwo given a chance to show they understand why their approach was wrong. If they cannot learn to be more neutral and less defensive of this band/articles, and continue to express conspiracy theories about PaleCloudedWhite's motives and editing biases, then yes, a ban is necessary. But perhaps Carliertwo can learn. Yesterday I tried at length to explain these problems to Carliertwo, perhaps it will sink in. I think, considering that this editor has in fact done much good work on the SATB articles, they should be given one more chance to learn how to be a more neutral WIki editor.Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment (Neutral) - Whatever the result is, I think we should wait for the user's current 48-hour block to expire before making a decision and closing the discussion. We should see what their response is. Their response and/or defense is important, even in the hypothetical situation where the user shoots themself in the foot (not to outright predict that they will). DarkKnight2149 14:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - If they can explain why their approach was incorrect, tone down the snarky retaliatory comments, and follow-up through with a more neutral mindset, then I would see no reason to implement a topic ban. Let us see what Carliertwo has to say when they are unblocked and we can decide.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• I'm fine waiting till the block expires. Carliertwo is a 10 year veteran here, while not as prolific as other editors with the same tenure, they have nonetheless been a solid contributor and that warrants consideration. Blackmane (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

And given that one of the articles they created currently has Good Article status (in addition to what you just said), I'm inclined to agree. DarkKnight2149 20:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Reply of Carliertwo: After reading advices and explanations, I realize that I've made a mistake of judgement. I shouldn't have withdrawn this review (quote + source) and only let her name appear and a simple mention of her review. I had done this because I've read many times she's a controversial writer, and as none of her articles is available on Rock's Backpages, I took it as a sign that maybe her work was not accepted by all of her peers. With the benefit of hindsight, I recognize, I was wrong as the only criteria that matters is the reliability of the source. (Her review was supervised by an editor in chief before publishing). I understand now very well the concerns of NPOV that my revert has raised. The next times, when I disagree with an edit and when one of my edits is reverted, I will use the talk, will try to find a compromise and in the end, abide to the consensus. I will also work to be more civil when I have a criticism to make. Carliertwo (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I really hope you have learned something Carliertwo but I apologize if I'm skeptical. For all we know, you are just saying this because you were faced with a legitimate possibility of being topic banned. During the ANI, you acted terribly hostile toward others (especially with me for some reason), casted aspirations, canvassed, and made excuses for your behavior. None of these factors bring about much confidence. Please note, however, I will agree with the consensus and I expect you to as well. That's even if it's not in your favor because, you must admit, your ability to be neutral is still at question.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging the editors who said they would comment when Carliertwo replied: Blakemane, Darkknight2149, Greg Fasolino, SilkTork, TomStar81. Anyone else of course can also respond.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Carliertwo has been advised and cautioned and has taken on board what has been said so there is no need for a ban. It may be worth stressing to Carliertwo that in situations like this, if there is a repeat of inappropriate attempts to control an article, and another ANI is called, that it is highly likely a topic ban will be the result. The best form of stewardship is seeking consensus when there are causes for concern. No editor should take it upon themselves to be the sole arbiter of what appears in an article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional Oppose I would be willing to give Carliertwo rope in the event that they apologize for all of this, and under the understanding that if it happens again, there won't be a second chance. --Tarage (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm going with AGF on this given Carliertwo's statement above. Sanctions are only to prevent ongoing disruption and not for punishment. Blackmane (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I am not going to vote either 'support' or 'oppose', because I brought this issue here for the wider community to assess. If Carliertwo is not topic banned but has learned that editors other than myself view their conduct as unacceptable, I am content with that, and I hope that neither myself nor any other editor has to raise this issue here again, for it is wearisome. I would add for the information of Carliertwo that I really do have records by the band - three SATB vinyl LPs, three SATB CD LPs, three SATB vinyl 45s, and two Creatures vinyl LPs - but it should not be necessary for editors to have to establish a fan status before they are 'allowed' to edit the SATB articles. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional oppose - I've been neutral so far but, when a user apologises for their behaviour, I take it as a sign that they themselves realise that they did something wrong. I oppose this topic ban, as long as they don't repeat what they specifically apologised for. This does not include accusations that they did not apologise for. DarkKnight2149 15:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Yh00157 - inability to read talk page, constant unsourced and undiscussed moves/edits

I have some concerns re the above user re apparent disregard to talk page notices regarding marking edits as minor, the first dating back to 2014, and the most recent being a bit more than a fortnight ago. The user is also now moving pages without consensus and no visible proof regarding the moves - I have (un)moved Stadler Eurolight to its original name of Vossloh Eurolight as no proof was offered for the name, other than the summary "factory ownership change"; the main Vossloh article citing that ownership was changed but nothing saying branding would be too. I have a feeling that the user may be a sock of blocked user D47817 but cannot find too many similarities other than inability to read their talk page and topic similarities. Would an uninvolved admin/experienced editor care to investigate and evaluate what action should be brought forward? Thanks all. Nördic Nightfury 13:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this is either incompetence or just blatant vandalism. Either way I think that the user should be prompted to respond, lest they banned from Wikipedia entirely should they continue to ignore warnings. I don't like to suggest banning right off the bat, but this seems like long-term nonsense going on and sanctioning should occur. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I've had concerns with this editor going back six years (earliest at User talk:Yh00157#Update tag). They have never replied to one of my messages on their user talk page; in fact, their only edit to that page was 09:49, 12 February 2011. So there is a definite communications problem here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

A block is needed here; from their contributions log, they know that their user talk exists since they removed a less than polite note from an editor asking what on earth Yh00157 was doing, and only a block will force this user to confront and discuss their problems which date back a number of years. Listing every single edit they make as minor when some are very much major changes is not helpful, but doing it for several years is a problem that requires a block. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I definitely see a lot of page moves and edits without consensus, and many warnings on the user's talk page that have gone ignored. Since this ANI thread was started and the user notified after their latest edit, I say we wait and give the user an opportunity to respond here. If the user proceeds with making edits or page moves like this and without discussion or consensus, I support blocking. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

For info - he has started editing again today. I see Redrose has fixed a DAB link put in by the subject. Nördic Nightfury 12:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have blocked the user for 31 hours for continuing to mark non-minor edits as minor, and ignoring warnings on their talk page and the discussion here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  With this edit, I guess that Yh00157 has seen the message. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Redrose64, jcc, Oshwah, Ivanvector:- I've de-archived this as the user appears to be at it again - marking edits as minor when they are not. Nördic Nightfury 06:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Next time, a link to the archived thread plus a brief summary is better. No need to copy the whole thing. I dropped them a note.El_C 06:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Despite your note, he's still continuing with exactly the same behaviour, adding unsourced material and marking everything as minor edits. Here is just one example among many. He's obviously learned nothing from his recent block, so apparently needs a longer block, or probably indef until there is reason to believe that he has understood the problem. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have now blocked the user indefinitely, as it's clear they intend to continue persistently marking all of their edits minor after having been told repeatedly to stop. This is a WP:CIR block. I'll have no problem with any other admin unblocking if the user makes any reasonable good-faith effort to address their block, but as they've yet to respond to any talk page warning in any way other than blanking the page, I find it unlikely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Having done some digging, the user appears to be of Korean decent, from this edit; with the emphasis thereon in with British Rail - related articles, with a few what appear to be Asian gaming companies long the way. I do still think there is some substantial socking occurring here, as Ivan says WP:CIR is an issue with this user. Either he knows what he is writing but doesn't understand it, or he knows he is breaking the rules. I'm tempted to ask for a checkuser to come along to do a quick check. Prior to them creating an account, they were editing from the IP 125.137.16.146. Nördic Nightfury 14:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector - I need your expertise here, I found a weird edit by an IP (here) on the last page Yh00157 edited before they were blocked, could the IP be linked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordic Nightfury (talk • contribs) 15:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nordic Nightfury: Your post will not have notified Ivanvector because you didn't sign it. But I agree; and see also 211.223.237.185. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Misconduct by User:Doc James in removing a properly cited article

User:Doc James removed on article on Heart failure medications that was properly cited with highly credited sources obtained from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed. He claims there was a copy and paste issue for a couple sentences, but everything was put in my own and my collaborator's words except for a few minor sentences that my collaborator copied and pasted with proper citations that could have been removed or changed without the deletion of an entire article. Additionally, he claims that the same article already exists; however, this is not the case, for the article on Heart failure medications described very detailed animal models, mechanisms of action, and indications for heart failure drugs that are very important for researchers like myself investigating the said drugs. I ask that the administrators undo the delete with the exception of the few sentences that must be re-edited and look into User:Doc James, for he does not know or understand how useful this information is for pharmacologists, cardiologists, and electrophysiologists, yet persists to make edits that are detrimental. Thank you! Sazhnyev (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This user has been making some strange edit.

Here he links antiarrhythmic agent to his newly created page. When we have an actual article on that topic.

Here he links the term "medication" on cardiac arrhythmia to his newly created page.

And he does this all the while well claiming that this new page was not about "cardiac antiarrhythmics".

Part of the text that was copied and pasted can be seen here and is at least 227 words.

On my talk page they claim the copyright issues were his collaborator's and he just copied them into Wikipedia.

The piece was mostly based on primary sources and we already have an article called Management of heart failure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

As already mentioned to User:Doc James, those link edits are not strange because my page consisted entirely of antiarrhythmic drugs, which would not have been too hard to understand if User:Doc James was experienced in this field. As far as the copied and pasted material, it can be very easily removed and re-edited with sabotaging an entire, very useful article. Sazhnyev (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Over two hundreds words is too much for a copypaste. El_C 18:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes yes exactly. That page you created consisted almost entire of antiarrhythmic medications so why was it called "heart failure medication"? And why were you not working on the article we have already on antiarrhythmics? The page you created was a co tract and a "copy and pasted" one at that.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My article contained many more words than 227. Me and my collaborator can work on rewriting the 227 words, but this article is of high importance for researchers who are experts in the field. As for the page on heart failure that he is talking about; it is absolutely useless in regards to the research that my article presented Sazhnyev (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

As for his claim that I simply used my collaborators information, me and my collaborator were working on this together right next to each other, and it was overlooked that their few sentences or so were copied and pasted, which is again something that can be easily fixed without deleting and article. Sazhnyev (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

More copied "Verapamil binding is voltage-dependent with affinity increasing as the vascular smooth muscle membrane potential is reduced. In addition, verapamil binding is frequency dependent and apparent affinity increases with increased frequency of depolarizing stimulus." from[74]

And this "adrenaline induced ventricular arrhythmias were examined in halothane anesthetized guinea pigs... Arrhythmogenicity was significantly increased with vagotomy and higher concentration of halothane. After injection of diltiazem at 0.5 mg/kg, the arrhythmic ratio (the number of ventricular ectopic beats divided by the total heart beats) was significantly reduced compared with the predrug control value (0.69 vs 0.04, P0.05)." from [75] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The table assembled on the new page I created was different from the existing article on antiarrhythmic agents. It provides detailed animal models that other pages don't offer. Sazhnyev (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

If it's intertwined with that much copypatse content, the onus is on you and your collaborator to redact those from the article. There has to be no copyvio. El_C 19:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm willing to fix the mistakes, but I am unable to access the source code for my article. Sazhnyev (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

To restore the article we would need to revert to a version without any copyright violations in it. There is a version available, the very first one (admin only). If we did that it would then be eligible for deletion under WP:A3 as there would be no substantive content in the article. ~ GB fan 19:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@~ GB fan could you provide me with the source code for that version by adding it to my user page? I am unable to access it because it says that the article is restricted to administrators. Thanks Sazhnyev (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done, but I doubt it will be much help. El_C 20:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Is there a way to access the source edit code for my entire article so I could work on it? It contains 45 references that I've compiled, which are essential for my edits. Sazhnyev (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe via email, if you have it enabled. El_C 20:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 20:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Glad to see people who actually know what they're doing. Sazhnyev (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to go down that route? Doc James is a doctor and a long time Wikipedia admin,. You, on the other hand, appear to be a rude and obnoxious person with an agenda and a hearing problem. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Not collaborating with other individuals is an aspect of being rude - he heedlessly deleted an entire article with valuable information for researchers in the field of pharmacology and cardiology without considering the possibility of promoting improvement in the article. Thus, before you attack an individual's intent, know both sides of the story and approach things objectively. Even if he really is a doctor, his actions aren't justifiable by the carelessness of assuming that what he doesn't find useful is such for everyone else - that's just being disrespectful. Sazhnyev (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please evaluate if this article, which appears to be based on one specific paper (?), is in violation of WP:OR? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sazhnyev: It appears you have not read this discussion, or have not understood it. Different people above have explained the problem—copying text from other sources is not permitted, and that is the only reason the page was deleted. Clicking the red link Heart failure medications shows a pink box with a very clear explanation of why the page was deleted. It was a copyright violation. If unsure about anything, try clicking the links in the message and reading them, then ask at WP:HELPDESK whether it is really true that people are not allowed to copy text from other sources to Wikipedia (answer: yes). To collaborate, it is first necessary to read messages from others, then take the time to comprehend them. Any reply should engage with the issues raised. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, you have misunderstood or completely missed my point. He could have only removed the few sentences that contained some cited copyright material added by my inexperienced collaborator. The entire article did not have to be removed because it needed a few minor fix-ups. Any decent person would understand that. Sazhnyev (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A decent person (El C) put the article without the copyright violation on your talk page (diff). Did you notice that El C also commented "It's blank, there's nothing there"? Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Sazhnyev: If you're suggesting that the article could have been kept with the copyvio sentences removed but the history kept, no this isn't generally allowed. This has already been mentioned before above, and really after this blew up you should have read WP:Copyvio. We can only keep the revisions without copyvios. This means if the copyvios were inserted very early on, there is basically nothing to keep as was apparently the case here. If there is some non copyvio content amongst that copyvio content, then it's possible that content could be re-used but you should take great care in doing this. As mentioned above, if you are re-adding the content the onus on you is to make sure it is completely free from copyvio. Often when an article is new and there is substantial copyvio concern it's better to just started again rather than trying to salvage anything. In any case, the content was emailed to you, something you could have requested earlier rather than complaining about the correct removal of copyvios. If you have any complaint, it's the person who created this mess by inserting the copyvios in the first place, something which is a very serious issue on wikipedia, and not those who wasted their time fixing it. New editor or not, people need to understand our copyright policies and requirements as it's a fundamental part of wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption by User:Sazhnyev

We have an article called antiarrhythmic agents which is exactly the same topic as the cardiac dysrhythmia medications this user has created. This has been explained to Sazhnyev both on my talk page and above. This is a Wikipedia:Content forking and he has been trying to get around this for some time (see his creation of heart failure medications). Rather than working on the existing article using high quality sources they continue to persist and continue to use small primary sources. At this point I am wanting to propose a topic area ban from health care widely construed for one year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support At first I thought this was a new user given the WikiEd tag on the top of their page but it turns out they've been editing for almost a year. If after all this time they haven't learned about copyvios, medical sourcing, and haven't learned to listen before lashing out then a stronger measure needs to be taken. Capeo (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• user was a student editor (Spring 2016 course page) last spring who came back to do more on their own time, which is nice, but their conduct here (their first significant foray back since the class ended per their contribs) has been horrible; they have added weird/bad content, ignored every bit of input from other editors that they have been given here and elsewhere, have tried five ways from Sunday to force this content into WP, and been insulting in the meantime.
  • odd obsession with animal models; content based on old/primary sources added to several articles about antiarythmic drugs: dif, diff, diff, diff
  • their contributions are apparently "important" per their edit notes: diff, diff, diff
  • in response to feedback, just removed Doc James initial response from their Talk page, and wrote these lovely things on Doc James' talk page dif (please read, starts with What do you think you're doing?); diff (includes Why do you feel the need to do what is not asked of you?); diff (includes How is that so hard to understand?? The article on Heart failure medications went into a much greater detail describing animal models and indications that researchers use in their studies! If that's beyond your understanding, then editing Wikipedia articles on antiarrhythmic heart failure drugs is not in the realm of your expertise!) and see above.
  • On this specific content, first added it here to Cardiac arrhythmia, edit warred to restore it here, tried to create it as a new article here, and ignoring several warnings about where it should go, and about COPYVIO and then again tried to create a new article here.

Seems like this person is an EXPERT (they noted here that the information is related to a research project in their lab) and could contribute a lot but they need to get grounded on how WP works. In addition to difficulites that academic scientists sometimes have adapting to WP, they seem to have some hangover from student editing, where students are actually taught to create some block of content and to dump that into WP, rather than trying to improve existing content and think about things like WEIGHT in a given article and meta-editing across related articles (that is a whole other kettle of fish)

A year seems weird. I would support an indef with the standard offer, which could let them back in 6 months but they would have to show that they understood how they have acted completely wrongly. I think a lot will depend on how they respond here. Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear, it seems we have a case of Mad On The Internet-ism. I'm all for encouraging new editors and I have reservations about dragging newbies to ANI when they screw up, but I think this contributor needs to calm down and settle into the idea of collaboration. Oppose ban for now, but I recommend that they run their ideas and drafts past WP Medicine from now on. Blythwood (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Domdeparis

@Domdeparis: has lost a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myton Warriors and instead of taking the defeat with grace, s/he has resorted to leaving a bogus personal attack template on my talk page. I did not "attack" Domdeparis, I simply asked questions about their motive and potential COI in the deletion nomination. They failed to provide a reasonable response but I gave them the BOTD anyway. Now, even if I had launched a personal attack, they would still have no authority at all to leave such a template as only warning. The correct thing to do if they believe I've breached Wikipedia policy would be to bring me here to ANI, as I am now doing with them. What I'd like as an outcome here is an administrator officially scrubbing the bogus warning from my talk page and Domdeparis officially warned about their counter productive behavior on this matter. Thanks Skemcraig (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My initial thoughts are that Domdeparis should come up with a better AfD nomination statement next time (such as why attempts to follow WP:BEFORE failed, for instance). Anyway, the AfD closed as "no consensus", which is a de facto keep, so you should take solace that the article was not deleted and move on from there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

reply @Ritchie333: point taken, it probably would have avoided a lot of grief, I will endeavour to do so next time, thanks for the advice. Domdeparis (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm delighted with SoWhy's closure and his closing comments, for sure. I just don't expect nonsense templates on my talk page by users who didn't get their way at an AfD discussion, which is why I'd like it officially scrubbed off as I don't deserve my reputation (well, very small reputation) here besmirched by a bogus warning from a biased editor with no right to make it. In fact, as a touch of irony, this could be viewed as a personal attack on me by Domdeparis. Also, I did mention a few days ago at the AfD that I no longer wished to communicate with Domdeparis as nothing more constructive could come from it. Skemcraig (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no "officially scrubbed off", and there's no consequence to getting a warning other than the fact you've been notified of the policy. If you're not doing anything wrong, no admin will take any action just because someone placed a warning notice. You're allowed to remove warnings (or almost anything else) from your talk page if you wish to. That's a confirmation that you read it, but not that you agree with it or consider it valid. Domdeparis, for your part, try bringing up issues in your own words rather than using a template. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Seraphimblade: in the Afd discussion I explained multiple times that I did not appreciate the accusations without proof that I was acting in bad faith and I asked Skemcraig to stay on the discussion and to avoid personalising the discussion and to AGF which he seemed incapable of doing making statements such as "I call it as I see it" "You're not doing much to dampen my worries that you're operating with some kind of COI here" "it's possible the nominator may have a preference for nominating club articles of one sport for deletion, whilst willingly ignoring the identical club articles of thier favorite sport", "I look forward to ScrapIron / Domdeparis nominating all the amateur rugby union club articles for deletion in the near future... (I won't hold my breath!)". Maybe a level 4 warning was too mush but making multiple insinuations and accusations directly aimed at me just based on his personal questioning is very unpleasant and detracts from the discussion. Domdeparis (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Skemcraig, there is no winning or losing of deletion discussions, it is not a contest or a game. There are nominators and there are participants and then a decision is made if an article should be kept or deleted based on the discussion. As Seraphimblade said, if you don't want the warning on the talk page, remove it. ~ GB fan 19:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You know what I mean by "lost a deletion discussion", s/he nominated the article for deletion and failed to argue the case, resulting ultimately in a no consensus closure. As for the advice by you and Seraphimblade regarding self removing the comment, I'd prefer an administrator to delete/hide Domdeparis's revision. Failing that, Domdeparis actually self-reverting would also be nice (I won't hold my breath on that one), but if I have too, I'll revert it myself at a later date. Thanks to everyone who's commented so far for the advice though, it's appreciated. Skemcraig (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

GB fan, every debate of any type has a winning side and a losing side, and is in fact a contest to see which side can present the strongest arguments while debating fairly. That doesn't automatically imply battleground behavior. I have to smile whenever someone objects to common usage of "win", "lose", or "opponents" with reference to debates. Most English words have multiple senses and we shouldn't assume one sense or the other when the intended sense is ambiguous. To outlaw the word "lose" is not unlike political correctness. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

An AfD is not a debate.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:AFDFORMAT: "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements." Emphasis mine. Sorry, but that sounds very much like the general definition of debate. Later at AFDFORMAT: "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments." Emphasis mine. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't much care what that says. I agree that AfD is a discussion, though; after all, that's it's title. The rest is silly. What about AfDs where everyone agrees on a particular result? I don't recall debates like that. In any event, the saddest thing is that you treat an AfD like a debate. Worse, I imagine you're not alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I thought the policy was that AfD's are discussions where the deletion of an article is debated rather than voted on, hence the use of "!vote" rather than "vote". Skemcraig (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I will never apologize for, let alone allow any editor to make me feel guilty for, presenting the strongest case I can, in any important discussion. I would expect no less from my opponents, and may the strongest arguments win. And the possibility of a unanimous AfD hardly justifies the statement, "An AfD is not a debate." ―Mandruss ☎ 22:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi just to point out that Skemcraig accused me 9 times during the Afd of being biased of having a vendetta and of being of bad faith because I refused to go looking for similar pages in rugby union, I asked him multiple times to stop and to concentrate on the discussion which he refused to do. I then posted the warning on his page because he clearly wasn't going to and it was only after this warning that the Afd was closed as no concensus. He didn't take the time to verify the time line as my warning was at 8:30 and the discussion was closed at 13:10 so this ANI is pretty pointless. Multiple accusations of bad faith without proof can be considered a personal attack. The page did not meet NORG as there were no references and I did carry out a search for sources but all I could find were routine ones. During the discussion 1 single source was added and as NORG states a single independent source is rarely enough to prove notability. As I stated in the Afd I have no agenda I came across this page whilst following the trail of a vandal and as it stood it did not meet the criteria. I am not going to apologise for nominating the page and annoying this editor. He claims that I have some kind of vendetta against rugby league. As far as I can remember the only rugby league page I have edited was Hull F.C. to undo the work of a vandal and his sock puppets who insisted in adding fictitious players to the squad. If I had something against the 13 a side game I would have left it I think rather than researching the team composition and undoing the vandalism. Having done this I opened a sock puppet investigation which blocked the puppets and as part of due diligence I verified that the various users had not vandalised other pages and that's how I ended up here. I do not deny that I prefer the 15 a side game because I used to play but I do deny having the slightest vendetta. My grandfather played both games. Domdeparis (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I've decided to revert the bogus warning by Domdeparis on my talk page as per administrator advice here. I've also left a note in the edit summary explaining why and I've also advised Domdeparis against repeating their actions. As for their reply here, the continued assertion that the article in question fails WP:NORG despite myself and several other editors now explaining that it doesn't (or that at best NORG is unclear on the matter), just shows the mentality of the person behind the account. An unwillingness to accept that they were/are wrong and shouting "AGF!"/"NPA!" when questioned about their AfD nominations are very worrying behaviors from somebody who is actually quite the veteran here. Anyway, with any luck, Mine and Domdeparis paths will not cross again on Wikipedia and their past and future behavior here will no longer be any of my concern. Since no administrator was willing to do the revert on my talk page (I understand why), the AfD that started all this is over and I have no wish to further communicate with Domdeparis, I'll consider this matter to be over. I'll leave it up to an uninvolved user to close this thread (or not if that's the preferred position). Thanks again to everyone here for their comments and advice on this matter. Skemcraig (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Skemscraig: I think that if you look carefully nobody advised you to revert anything but reminded you that you are not obliged to leave (almost) anything on your talk page and if you want to remove the warning you can. The most important thing IMHO is that you read it and even if you don't agree with the warning you now know that repeatedly accusing others of bad faith without proof is often upsetting to those that you accuse, and as you have been advised you should move on. I have taken on board the advice and from now on will try and be clearer in my nominations to avoid this kind of situation in the future. Happy editing! Domdeparis (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

"You're allowed to remove warnings (or almost anything else) from your talk page if you wish to." – Seraphimblade / "As Seraphimblade said, if you don't want the warning on the talk page, remove it." – GB fan / followed up by "but if I have too, I'll revert it myself at a later date. Thanks to everyone who's commented so far for the advice though, it's appreciated." – Me!

It is quite clear that to remove the warning is to revert/undo your edit to my talk page which is what I was advised to do and what I did. Skemcraig (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Skemcraig: FYI, but whether you remove the warning or not is somewhat of a distraction really. Whether it stays or it goes, you are deemed to have read it with either action. So, unfortunately, the warning itself still stands in the history, and by extension, in the collective memory. Hope this clarifies it for you! Cheers, — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up Fortuna. On the back of that, I'd like to formally request again that an administrator delete/hide the Domdeparis edit from my talk page history. Cheers Skemcraig (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Skemcraig: Sorry, no. Possibly incorrect or incorrect warnings do not merit revision deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I doubt there is any policy-based reason to do so per WP:DELTALK. You are free to revert it if you disagree but none of the reasons for deletion apply. My advice: Just walk away. This discussion has run its course, it's clear that you and Domdeparis will not agree and there is nothing you or he did that warrants further discussion. It would be in all our interest if all involved parties spend their time here more productively. May I suggest trying to establish a notability guideline for rugby teams? Regards SoWhy 12:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Consider me walked away SoWhy. I'll leave it to the more experienced editors here to come up with a notability guideline for amateur sports clubs, which I agree is badly needed. IMHO, WP:RL, WP:RU, WP:WPF and many many more sports related WikiProjects are going to need to collaborate very closely on this. Skemcraig (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A final thought: There is no monopoly on who can suggest new guidelines and sometimes things will not happen if everyone considers it to be somebody else's problem. Be bold, make the first step and propose something; the talk pages of the WPs you mentioned or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is a good place to do so. All "more experienced editors" started out small. Regards SoWhy 13:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

it's a good remark I have already tried to change the WP:NRU criteria by opening a discussion to try and get the Georgian players the same status of notability as other teams because Georgia is now considered as a high performance union but it's almost impossible to get some kind of concensus. It would be so much easier to have notability criteria for teams rather than just NORG but it would have long reaching consequences for all sports I think. Domdeparis (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it would behoove both Domdeparis and myself to one day set aside this spat and work together on a policy proposal for sports club notability on Wikipedia. If I start a discussion at VP or elsewhere regarding the matter, I'll be sure to drop a note at User talk:Domdeparis and a note on my talk page is welcome should anyone wish to start the discussion process before I get around to it. For now though, I'm off on a short Wikibreak. Skemcraig (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User:TheBlackKnightConfirmes

Yet another WP:NOTHERE conspiracy theorist. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

With the past only two edits, it seems that something is suspicious, and there seems to be nothing new, depending if a previous account is overlapped. SportsLair (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

When a conspiracy theorist posts things that are remarkably similar to things posted by a previous conspiracy theorist, there is a tendency to assume sockpuppetry. In reality, conspiracy theories tend to have lots of true believers who read the same webpages, so I choose to WP:AGF. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

So the belief that this conspiracy theorist is the same conspiracy theorist as the last conspiracy theorist is a conspiracy, then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalfShadow (talk • contribs) 00:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

More ARBPIA shenanigans

Everyone gets a WP:TROUT. Remember AGF. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Need an admin to keep an eye on Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017. Some shenanigans, with the RfC and Survey having been modified long after people had responded to them([76][77])—making it seem as if people had been responding to this new text. And generally, questionable WP:TPG behaviour. Thanks. El_C 07:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC) All I did was to neutralize the RfC header. Since my alternate phrasing was objected to, I am trying to discuss on the talkpage to get a consensus wording. But El_C is getting hung up on procedural matters without addressing my point about the neutrality of the RfC header. Anyway, I have no intention to modify the RfC text as I said there already. But sure, whatever. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC) It's far from procedural, people have already responded to the RfC, have already !voted on the Survery—you are adding text to the RfC and Survery after the fact, making it seem as if they responded to your points. That's so basic, I'm surprised you still think it's okay or merely procedural. El_C 08:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC) I suggest the shenanigans are not wholly on one side, as you appear to be suggesting. You stood by quietly while this odd behavior took place, by the editor your own edits consistently support in this area. This is one sequence on that utterly irrational page, where all sources for definitions are ignored and editors just opinionize. (1)SJ 20:18, 29 March 2017 reverted an edit I'd just made. His revert was curious because the protocols governing this page for 3 years allow 'home demolitions' as (in a Palestinian POV) a form of violence. These pages have hundreds of entries on them, never questioned or reverted. SJ's revert went against the accepted page practice, and against the specific header protocol which specifies home demolitions are included as per one POV definition of them. (2)Simultaneously 20:18, 29 March 2017 he dropped a note registering his view that home demolitions are not an example of violence‎ (3) Then two minutes later 20:20, 29 March 2017 he opened an RfC. I.e. first he reverted then (presumably to block any other editor from restoring the elidesd information), immediately opened an RfC. (4) While discussion had barely begun, he then went back to the article and removed 20 minutes later further material in the edit, content that is reported in all the sources. here, namely ’Her son Mustafa Nimr had been shot dead when a vehicle he was in, driven by a drunken driver on drugs, rammed past a checkpoint in Eastern Jerusalem during a night raid, by border guards who mistook them for terrorists in September 2016. Palestinian sources say she was shot in the chest and left to bleed to death after a altercation with police at the site. She was with her daughter at the time.’ Again, please note that for 3 years, these lists have always had such circumstantial details of any incident when a separate article on the incident does not exist. No one has ever objected to that. (5) I reframed the RfC, while leaving 21:43, 29 March 2017‎ the other intact. Since the RfC by Sir Joseph was in my view badly formulated, which I thought correctly framed the issue. (6)User:El_C 21:46, 29 March 2017 reverts my RfC format with the ES ‘One RfC at a time, please’ (7) SJ then incredibly comments You don't open an RFC before even discussing the issue on the talk page 21:47, 29 March 2017 But that is exactly what he did! (8)In other words, SJ made a revert, and simultaneously, registers his point on view. Before anyone has the time to discuss it, he then opens an RfC which automatically blocks the editing process. Then he goes ahead and re-edits the page. When I open an RfC reformulating the badly worded (in my view) RfC SJ introduced, he replies that I should do what he himself just did a few minutes earlier. That looks like precisely the gaming of the strict rules which has been mentioned on the AE page. El_C seems to me to have dropped any administrative care in neutrally evaluating the behavior of both sides..Nishidani (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Nishidani, as always, seems to forget conversations. There has been talk page discussions about property damage and the need for an RFC. All one has to do is look at the talk page and read. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Anyone who thinks I forget, can examine quickly the 5 articles from 2015, 2 years, confirm that over this period (a) house demolition entries are extremely commonplace, and that (b) on the talk pages no significant challenge was made to this practice. (1)List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2015. The talk page has no objections registered and the page protocol stipulates house demolitions as an element of the series. (2) List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015. No talk page discussion of the issue. (3) List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016 One user questioned demolitions. My judgement as to their inclusion was confirmed by a third editor.(b) A drive by reverter elided one example. The subsequent talk page discussion backed my judgement, with 2 editors supporting it. (4) List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2016 . No talk page challenge. So one had (a) a protocol on the first page defining the content to be included in this series, i.e., house demolitions. For 2 years of daily editing over 4 articles, there were 2 editors who reverted on the grounds that house demolitions were not ‘violence’. 3 editors supported my judgement, and the protocol. That was the editing norm. In other words, you ignored the protocols governing these pages in making 3 reverts of material long included, March 13, March 20, March 29, as supported by 2 prior discussions. I was referring to these. The breaking of the convention was thrice made without addressing the consensus in the archives.Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC) I am just trying to keep a semblance of order, while each side accuses me of being for the other—I can only imagine the multiple-RfC chaos if I wasn't there. El_C 09:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC) For the record, Nishidani is being disingenuous—I supported his suggestion to rename the article. But now there are battle lines? One RfC at a time, please. El_C 09:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC) No. For the record, I am sticking to the known facts, which you do not address on the talk page. I have the distinct impression that, while exercising an administrative role, your approach has recently been consistently partisan. I may be wrong, but documenting a perceived problem and arguing one's point of view is not battling. It is what editors do. To say so is to accuse me of bad faith (disingenuous means 'failure to be candid or sincere', a wiki euphemism that is a violation of WP:AGF.Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC) I agree with El_C in that changing the header, proposal, request, etc isn't proper after the RfC has gone live, and users have given input on the request with the wording as it was when submitted -- shouldn't be done, generally. Usually, if wording in that area needs to be changed, it should be discussed in that discussion. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Nishidani takes my comment, then he bulltetpoints it and makes me !vote by copying it with my username attached. I'm telling you all, questionable WP:TPG behaviour. El_C 09:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC) This is piddling, for want of WP:AGF, E_C. Earlier I wrote in response to you that the removal of demolitions you backed would means months of work because they have always been uncontroversially included. I asked you for a creative solution, along the lines of 'changing the title'. You responded Yes, changing the title also works. I'm game with that. El_C 21:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC). I didn't think there was a copyright problem, requiring consent for requoting a remark made by someone else earlier. You took umbrage. Okay. A note saying you thought this improper was all that was required, not (and it looks odd) going to AN/I and raising a complaint about putative 'shenanigans' regarding myself and another editor. That only looks unneutral, going ballistic over commas etc.Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Just leave me in peace. El_C 09:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC) I mean no offence, but if you report me or anyone else, automatically those whose editing behavior you describe negatively as 'shenanigans' naturally set forth their views. That offends my sense of being a conscientious contributor, whose problems lie in trying scrupulously to reason here, rather than play games that smack of ruses and insincerity ('disingenuous') You can't report something to elicit another administrator's action against them and complain then that the inevitable responses are disturbing your equanimity, surely? So, fine, let's drop it. Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Here's the basic point: The current RfC wording is bad - nobody seems to agree on what "actual violence" means. And the wording was not discussed before the RfC was opened, so it had no consensus in the first place. What I did was to remove the RfC header, so that one can finalize the wording before others waste their time responding to an ill-formed question. It was reverted, and since then, discussion on the talkpage is going on. I have no interest in procedural games, and there's nothing to see here anyway. As I said, I have no idea why this was brought to ANI. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC) You already asked that and I already answered: because I need someone else to keep an eye while I'm away. El_C 09:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC) I am happy with more eyes on the talkpage, admin or otherwise. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC) Kingsindian now replaced the RfC long after it went live and was responded to, despite objections from the RfC author. Just for the record. El_C Once again, I'm on my own trying to keep a semblance of order—when did ARBPIA talk pages become such a free-for-all? El_C 18:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka

Currently all the ‘terrorist incidents lists by country’ pages in WP including the master list – List of terrorist incidents do not use the term ‘non-state’ in page titles. However user:Obi2canibe is insisting that the List of terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka should contain the term "non-state" in its title, going contrary to the other lists of terrorist incidents. I have discussed this issue at the talk page of the article with him before, but he is not accepting the definition of “terrorist” accepted in WP for these kind of pages. He has reverted moves done by my self and user:Kristijh (in August 2016) to remove the word non-state from the title previously. Hence I would like to seek administrator intervention to solve this issue that has been going on for some time now. ---LahiruG ^talk 11:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the right place to discuss this but here goes. This is an old dispute which first arose in August 2015 when LahiruG refused to allow state-terrorism incidents in the list, reverting several times any attempt to add state-terrorism incidents (e.g. 1; 2). A discussion ensued following which LahiruG himself re-named the article List of (non-state) terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka. Eighteen months later LahiruG wants to resurrect this old dispute for some reason.

Calling an article "List of terrorist incidents in..." and then excluding a particular type of terrorism from the list is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:PRECISION. The fact that there are few other articles like this does not make it right.

Frankly, this article should be deleted - it just repeats content found elsewhere: List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, List of attacks on civilians attributed to the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, List of massacres in Sri Lanka.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

User: 172.58.225.248

The ip-adress 172.58.225.248 needs to be blocked. He/she has reverted good edits made by a user only because this user has a name associated with homosexual orientation, and referred to his/hers own homophobia as the reason for the reversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/172.58.225.248--Aciram (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I gave the user a Level-4 warning for the comments in the edit summary, since they were not warned (also, you might want to notify them of the ANI discussion as it says above). My sock-sense however is tingling with this IP...RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I should have warned them. Thank you! --Aciram (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Access page on Google search

Please admin i am unable to access my page when I search for it on google https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olila-Ebhugh_Abureni [[[User:Emmanuelebidan|Emmanuelebidan]] (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuelebidan (talk • contribs) 14:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a certain amount of time before a new page is indexed by search engines. I'll be honest, I do not know what that time is. --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Darth Mike, I got the impression the new user was simply looking for his article. Emmanuelebidan, I'm not sure what's the status of the page you got from Google, but your article is here: Olila-Ebhugh Abureni. Oh.. it was just there a minute ago, but I see it has just been deleted per WP:A7: "Article about an eligible subject, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Sorry about that. For another time, the simplest way to find your own contributions is to go to "contributions" in the row of personal links that you can see top right on all pages. Welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing! Bishonen | talk 15:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC).

It's also been deleted per CSD A7 RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks [[[User:Emmanuelebidan|Emmanuelebidan]] (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)] I don't understand really because I was writing about the Olila-Ebhugh stool., a stool like similar to other Traditional stools [[[User:Emmanuelebidan|Emmanuelebidan]] (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)]

Hi Emmanuelebidan! I'll be more than happy to assist you with your questions and explain how the process works. Can we take this to my user talk page and go from there? This will allow this discussion here to be closed, since there are no incidents that require administrator action here. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I have a sugesstion. Start writing your article here: User:Emmanuelebidan/sandbox. This is your own sandbox that you can take some time with creating your article. Please note: all articles have to have in-depth coverage from reliable sources to show Notability. It isn't enough just to exist, articles must pass our General Notability Guidelines. Feel free to ask me any questions on my talk page and I'll do my best to find you an answer. --Darth Mike^(talk) 18:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		I'm just going to give this to everyone in this thread for making altogether more of an effort than I expected from ANI at actually helping OP, instead of closing it with a vengeance and moving on. Good on you guys. TimothyJosephWood 21:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, @Emmanuelebidan: you need to remove one of the brackets [ from the left side of your signature, otherwise your signature doesn't show up properly. Preferably, please sign with four tildes, ~~~~ or by clicking the link next to the text "Sign your posts". Blackmane (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh my God, yes. Agreed with Blackmane -- Please do this... lol :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Bureaucratic threat by an editor at a tainted RfC

An RfC at Talk:X-Men (film series) was tainted by an editor who did inappropriate WP:VOTESTACK canvassing to rally other editors who agreed with him. When I pointed this out, editors in favor of the now biased and tilted responses began leveling arguments against me and in favor of the editor who cheated. Despite the inappropriately canvassed editors brought in to bias the results, the RfC is still roughly evenly split. Yet the same editors who supported the canvassing now are claiming consensus and suggesting they themselves declare the RfC closed in their favor — one more in a string of improprieties.

When I pointed out here, "Be aware that Wikipedia allows WP:Move review in case of closing improprieties," editor User:AlexTheWhovian threatened me here that, "Any move review that is submitted by yourself in question to this discussion, after the page has or has not been moved, will be reported as harassment against the editors of this discussion...."

Pointing out policy/guideline violations that tainted an RfC is not harassment. Reporting an improper close, if one happens, also is not harassment but following the rules that were established precisely for such occasions. What I believe is harassment is an editor threatening another editor simply for wanting to make use of a mediation venue, for goodness' sakes. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please note I did apply the required notice to his talk page, but he immediately removed it here. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Funny how you forgot the rest of the sentence. "... given how close you already are to this issue over your inappropriate actions here"[78]. I tried to warn you of WP:BOOMERANG, but you didn't listen, so I'll list your heinous acts against the editors of that discussion, and the invalidity of this report, when I'm free. I have no need of the notice on my talk page, I am aware of it, obviously. -- Alex^TW 22:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The rest of the sentence was subjective opinion and a falsehood. But by all means, feel free to include that additional uncivil and false accusation. And by the way, trying to deflect responsibility for your threat by arguing that "he asked for it" is an old and not very good debate trick. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• The RfC still has a way to run, but I'm going to close it now as "No Consensus to move" not because of the canvassing, but because of its ludicrous premise. You've got a load of supports for moving to Title A, Title A or B, Title A or B or C, Title B or D (etc. etc.) and a load of Opposes. Nothing is ever going to come out of this. It needs to be restarted with a much shorter list (preferably one or two) titles to move to. Otherwise you're never going to get anywhere - which this RfC has proved. Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

With the RfC closed, this discussion is moot. I'm withdrawing it. User:AlexTheWhovian can continue with his own claims in a separate ANI if he wishes. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

RECENTIST editing to members of Congress articles

There has been a spate of editing of members of Congress articles by different editors including text which appears to qualify as RECENTIST (I am personally aware of Claire McCaskill, Peter Roskam and John Faso, although there are probably others). Please see [79], [80], [81], and [82] for starters. My own opinion is that the articles constitute recentism, perhaps for partisan purposes, but these edits are vigorously contested and some admin insight will be appreciated. There are various editors involved but I have only notified Klkl3000 as I was only directly interacting with him/her. Quis separabit? 00:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a note that WP:RECENTISM is neither a guideline nor policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I mean, well no, but a lot of editors think that it is a good enough reason on it's own to revert edits for some reason. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, @ThatGirlTayler -- just curious where you stand on the issue based on your edit here. I mean congresspersons should be treated equally. If McCaskill's town hall policies are unwarranted for inclusion then surely all congresspersons' handling of this recent phenomenon should be treated consistently. Thanks. Quis separabit? 05:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: That was before I knew WP:RECENTISM wasn't actually part of WP policy. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This really looks like a content dispute to me... Tazerdadog (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really, at least on my end. I just believe that there needs to be consistency on the town hall issue. This townhall phenomenon is not going to go away any time soon and should be addressed sooner rather than later. If McCaskill's town hall policies are not worthy of inclusion then neither should those of Faso, for instance. Quis separabit? 06:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No matter what you think about the need for consistency, Rms125a@hotmail.com, this is a content dispute that does not belong here at ANI. Administrators do not use their toolkits to intervene in content disputes. And your notion that we must somehow be consistent concerning biographies of politicians who are members of the U.S. Congress is incorrect. Some are first termers and others have served many terms. Some stay out of the limelight while others crave national publicity and it comes to them. And so on. We summarize what the range of reliable sources say, and if they emphasize "Issue X" regarding one politician far more than another politician, then our biographies should reflect that. Now, take it to the various article talk pages, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Quis separabit? - Lets meet at the talk page and work this out Klkl3000 —Preceding undated comment added 12:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Terry Bean is repeatedly being sanitized to remove embarrasing material.

I just noticed that there is a substantial recent history of the Talk page for the article Terry Bean being "sanitized" (really, vandalized) to repeatedly remove commentary in that page. Further, the article itself has been protected to prevent edits. My recent edit hasn't yet been vandalized in that way yet, but no doubt it will be soon. 71.36.114.245 (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's adorable that you've had numerous editors tell you what you are trying to do is a BLP violation, and your first thought was to run to ANI to get even more eyes on it and make it even less likely that your vandalism would stick. You aren't very clever are you? --Tarage (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Tarage - Lets not engage in uncivilized responses like that :-). It's not needed, and it doesn't resolve the matter in a positive way. There's no reason for it -- if what you're saying is right, we need to deny recognition. Making responses like that give trolls exactly what they want. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean at all. Removing commentary and content that isn't written in a neutral point of view is not vandalism. You added a discussion to the article's talk page here, which is fine. I just fail to see what the problem is here... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparently a sock has been going on (and off) re: child molestation for many many moons. Their comments were deleted because they are a sock, not because of content. Involved editors should be contacted for an explanation of their deeds. L3X1 (distant write) 13:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to say, sock or not, they have somewhat of a point. Their wording, making a direct affirmative claim, is a BLP violation but their source is good. WW is renowned for their investigative journalism and actually nabbed a Pulitzer for it. I would say the story deserves a properly attributed sentence or two. Capeo (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we ask editor Ebyabe why he did it? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATerry_Bean&type=revision&diff=760363427&oldid=760349355 Curiously, Ebyabe does not appear to have ever before edited the article Terry Bean, at least back until June 2012. Are there people on WP who simply randomly find articles, or Talk pages, find text, delete it, and then don't bother to explain what they did? They must have had a reason, right? 71.36.114.245 (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed a rambling comment that contained no constructive input for article improvement. Almost three months ago. Does that help clear things up? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 05:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The IP's comment has not been deleted. I have offered a suggestion on how they may resolve their issue. Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 05:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

What's your definition of "rambling"? That editor merely complained about how text was being removed from a Talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATerry_Bean&type=revision&diff=760349355&oldid=758262610 And you referred to "their issue", as if the deletion of the only material on a Talk page is somehow ONLY one person's issue. That text was not libelous or irrelevant, and it was obviously not vandalism. And it was clearly intended to spark a discussion. And you still didn't explain why you, with no prior involvement in the article Terry Bean, just happened to show up to delete what was, at that time, the only comment on an otherwise-blank Talk page. Who asked you to do that? That's the only explanation I can see. Also, you mislead by claiming that "The IP's comment has not been deleted". You said, on a comment on my Talk page, that it has been ARCHIVED. Archived is the approximate equivalent of putting this month's utility bill into the attic, in a large box, piled high. Who, do you expect, will bother to look for that archived material? How will they know it exists, in the first place? And, please note, I notice you did that within TWO HOURS of the other editor's addition. Sounds like you considered it an emergency!! Can't allow others to speak their mind? 71.36.114.245 (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Amithvpurushothaman

Amithvpurushothaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to remove speedy deletion tags and make non-notable articles despite having already been both warned and blocked for this behavior. Was going to report to AIV, but wasn't sure that it was vandalism. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 15:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Between the repeated creation of a promotional (and it appears probably autobiographical page), the block evasion and sock puppetry, and repeated warnings to NOT remove speedy tags, I've blocked the user indef (They are just off a 1 week block as well). RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Saharawiki

Saharawiki might not realize they have a talk page and that someone might be trying to communicate. My concern is that they are changing the "tense" while claiming "Edits for writing quality only, not for content" which is also more time than not, not an improvement. Most recently on Stephen Colbert. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Himel Rahmon

Disruptive editing by User:Himel Rahmon on Maratha invasions of Bengal. The user removing well-cited content without any proper explanation, no serious effort to engage on the talk page. Shimlaites (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked (by me) via a report at AIV. Amortias (T)(C) 16:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Name change discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks

Because this issue has been extremely contentious in the past, I invite admins and other interested parties to keep an eye on this name change discussion regarding the future naming of the Liancourt Rocks article. Thank you for participating! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

78.61.230.14

78.61.230.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (probably using other iPs, see talk page) persistently removes historical Polish names from many Lithuanian locations, despite warnings in the talk page. At the same time it adds Lithuanian names to Polish/Belarusian locations (which is OK), so I have to suspect militant nationalism. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Class Project - Copyright violations added by unregistered class project.

It appears there is an unmonitored class project abound which - effectively - appears to be googling for content to add to various article's with no regards for copyright whatsoever. One student mentioned they are being graded by the amount of content added which really doesn't seem to work at all. As i am about to leave till Monday i won't have the time to deal with this myself so if anyone could that would be excellent.

I left a more thorough analysis and explanation here on the ENI noticeboard. Seeing the situation this one needed flagging on ANI as well to. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Bloomdoom2

Bloomdoom2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor contributes almost exclusively to rap music articles. Makes poorly sourced edits, and then edit wars with others who revert their edits.

• Diffs: [83][84][85].
• Inquiries on Bloomdoom2's talk page about unsourced edits at Painting Pictures were not answered.
• This editor is very likely a sock of User:Xboxmanwar, who was indefinitely blocked. I started an SPI over a month ago at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xboxmanwar, but there seems to be a backlog. At that SPI, administrator User:Laser brain commented here: "In my opinion this is obvious and Bloomdoom2 should be blocked per WP:DUCK and the below CU result." I am reporting this here because the editing behavior has not changed, and the editor is starting to create new, poorly sourced articles . Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: You should disregard the fact that I'm Xboxmanwar, because I'm not, and I added a source to the Tunnel Vision article, since when I added "poorly sourced" edits, all these claims but you don't back them up. I also haven't consistently done "edit wars" on anything really. I also didn't respond to your questions because I don't have time to respond, I have other things to do continuously, which is why I was absent on Wikipedia for a week and a half and today, I have since then responded. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• If this is all the evidence there is of edit warring, I wouldn't expect a block to be forthcoming. No comment on the socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could look into the socking. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Block: This user has been indeed posting unsourced material for quite a while, and it seems that there just might be something suspicious in the force about this bloom doomer. A short-term block would be recommended if any unsourced additions or any edit warring goes any farther. SportsLair (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

As a added bonus, it looks to me that an investigation is taking place, so there is a possible chance that the defendant might be doomed for good here. SportsLair (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@SportsLair: Want to back up your claims of me adding unsourced content? Bloomdoom2 (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

My duty would be inappropriate. To tell you the truth, if you're tagged as a WP:SOCK, no one is going to help you. You're all alone. SportsLair (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@SportsLair: Nice of you telling me that (sarcasm, sad and inappropriate), and Magnolia677 only thought I was Xboxmanwar because of my supposed "editing style", heck I even accused of being other editors if you read everything on the SPI. Unlike the other "unsourced" editors, I do add my sources, and if my edit was reversed, I would add one, I've done it here, here, and here and added sources for multiple things, shown here, here, here, here, and more edits. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I have transmitted telepathy to User:Ponyo to see if he can help investigate this case. SportsLair (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, the doomer just expressed some retaliation in retribution that I'm trying to help out with this case here. SportsLair (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@SportsLair: My intent wasn't retaliation, I literally found it funny about it, sorry if I offended you seriously, but I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to me as "bloom doomer" or "the doomer", thanks again. I would also appreciate if you answer my question please. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations of disruption and vandalism to try and halt constructive editing

AGF issues. It seems constructive encyclopaedic editing of this page results in unwarranted accusations of "disruption" and vandalism. There are clear errors in the article including misuse of sources, synthesis, and OR. The same editor responded to a merge proposal with language such as "bunch of dogshit" and "crap Wikipedia users." Editor assumes they have the authority to undo edits because they created the article. Acousmana (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the editor in question has some issues with civility, but I would love to see more of an attempt from you to try to talk about your edits on the talk page. What I can see is you making a bunch of edits, him reverting it, you reverting his revert. You should have taken this to the talk page instead of here. --Tarage (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks, isn't bold editing warranted when there are errors in an article? Anyone who checks the sources against the article content will issues, do I literally have to evidence them point for point on a talk page to make improvements? Who has the time for that? Acousmana (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The typical cycle is edit, revert, discuss. You skipped the third part. Either way, now the article has more eyes on it for sure. --Tarage (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Acousmana: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." I have done so for you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• sighs* Well, I guess I should've seen this coming. editorEهեইдအ😎 23:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

not sure how this string of insults is indicative of the type of communication Wikipedia should be fostering: "your comphrehension [sic] skills are the problem"; "stupid fucking edits";"your crappy comprehension skills";"sick of your stupid nonsense";"there's no fucking original research."

• For the record, I've been editing on and off for 10 years at this point, time was this kind of hostility and profanity would not be tolerated. Acousmana (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Without taking a position on the underlying facts about the article content, @EditorE: can you address why you felt it necessary or usefully to report Acousmana to AIV and insult him like that on the article talk page? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Simple: Acousmana's edits were unproductive and cause by lack of comprehesion of the sources cited to say the least. Since you guys are never gonna learn your lessons despite providing evidence on the Hardvapour talk page that his actions have ruined the article, I guess I might as well let the article get ruined by you people. People like Acousmana. User:AldezD and User:Catlemur are an insult to the Wikipedia community because of what they've done and what I've tried to stop them doing. editorEهեইдအ😎 00:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm gonna stop leaving comments on this discussion BTW editorEهեইдအ😎 00:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm gonna block you, btw. The edit warring is one issue, but you've been warned about personal attacks and civility before and clearly have not brought that on board. Take 31 hours off and don't act like that again when you come back. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@EditorE: That is just sad. I hope the ban gives you enough time to find enough rare Pepes for you to incorporate them into Wikipedia.--Catlemur (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@EditorE: You need to grow up. Pinging me in this ANI—a dispute about something completely unrelated to my activity here—is absolute nonsense. Apparently you still hold a grudge over a discussion at Talk:Judith Barsi#Recent edits and WP:NOTMEMORIAL from FOUR YEARS AGO. Hopefully this ban will allow you to focus your life on something far more meaningful than Wikipedia. AldezD (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I would not normally engage in this activity, but perhaps you should reconsider a block longer than 31 hours for EditorE per WP:AGF and WP:CIR. AldezD (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

unfortunate behavior when edits like this demonstrate that @EditorE: knows exactly why certain content was tagged, would have been simpler to address the issues than attack an editor. Acousmana (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC

User:Champion nominated Barack Obama for deletion

Champion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Siuenti (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Funny thing is, this and this got deleted minutes after creation. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

and I had to take the Afd banner from Obama's article? Siuenti (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

That discussion needs to go on, the nomination should not have been deleted. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It was there for two minutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&type=revision&diff=773209427&oldid=773209333 Siuenti (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes I see now. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Champion, you've just gone ahead and re-created the Barack Obama AfD after I deleted it; this is inappropriate. These AfDs aren't funny - they're trolling and disruptive, even more so since you're nominating BLP pages for deletion with silly rationales (your rationale for deleting Hillary Clinton was almost an attack page). Please stop. Acalamari 00:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Why wasn't Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_Trump dealt with the same way then? I did this on the grounds that that particular one did go through. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

That would be because neither I nor any other admin willing to enforce the BLP policy saw it at the time (I suspect him still being seen as a joke back then might also have played into it but I wouldn't keep that one around, either, and I'm no Trump fan). Acalamari 01:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Rules_for_Fools#Accidents_will_happen how about staying clear of FAs and BLPs? Siuenti (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

NONE OF THIS IS FUNNY. BE SERIOUS ON XFD, EVEN DURING APRIL 1ST. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

So what about This Afd on Wikipedia? Lord High Permanent Senior Undersecretary to L3X1 ( How'd' you like me now?) 01:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

And can we please please please semi-protect everything for 24 hours?? L3X1 (distant write) 01:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

KA'BOOM! El_C 04:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

April 1 is serious business. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC).

There's quite a few of these "joke" AfD pages - might be a good idea to keep an eye on this and make sure that the articles themselves are not tagged with an AfD notice (I've removed them from Apple Inc. and Stingy), and that the discussion page does not have the {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE}} template, since that's what makes the bot add the notice to articles (if I understand it correctly). --bonadea contributions talk 07:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Btw, I think this one is well beyond what should be acceptable even as a joke. --bonadea contributions talk 07:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed the nomination text, but someone could delete the page if they wanted to. The nominator was globally locked shortly after creating the AfD, which leads me to believe this probably wasn't meant as anything more than trolling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Fun-wikipedians and Serious-wikipedians. always a controversy. this battle will determine the future of wikifools. by the way, I'm on the fun side. DiamondMiner7^On_WHEELz!^{april fools!}_ProDuct0339 08:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

A good April Fool's would be content creation, actually; way to take everyone by surprise :D — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, ProDuct0339, but there is no "battle" and it's got nothing to do with whether editors are "fun" or "serious". Most of us are hopefully a bit of both. --bonadea contributions talk 09:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

"Fun-wikipedians and Serious-wikipedians. always a controversy". My oddball sense of humour was mentioned in my RFA. Probably my best content contribution could be summarised as "they did it for great justice and epic lulz". I don't find these joke AFDs funny. See:WP:BLP. Pete "the guy who brought you such ludicrous but notable articles as Ego Leonard, Undie Run and Bal du Rat mort" AU aka--Shirt58 (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe turn off the bot for 24 hours? I'd suggest it to the owner but I don't understand his/her talk page. Siuenti (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• All admin should be blocked for 24 hours — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord High Permanent Senior Undersectretary to L3X1 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with everyone above, but I can't agree with anyone on this.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Cliff1911 editing logged out, same stuff that got him blocked

Cliff1911 was blocked one time on October 7, 2016, and he never again edited under that account. Instead, the articles that he was interested in have been edited by an array of IP addresses from the same area of Pennsylvania.

• Glenside: 216.162.93.36 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Glenside: 216.162.93.37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Glenside: 216.162.93.47 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Glenside: 216.162.93.41 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Glenside: 216.162.93.50 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Glenside: 216.162.93.52 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Ambler: 107.1.239.210 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Fort Washington: 68.238.243.3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Fort Washington: 50.251.33.241 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Doylestown: 98.115.219.127 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Northampton: 207.172.54.71 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Bryn Mawr: 96.245.54.204 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This guy is especially interested in the articles Josh Groban (a BLP), Bad Santa, Angry Grandpa (another BLP), and High Hopes (Frank Sinatra song). He adds trivial, unreferenced stuff that was apparently observed by him, for instance this series of additions which shows a big problem with WP:NOR and of course undue emphasis which falls under WP:NPOV. He often adds more detail to film plot sections in violation of the 700-word limit set by WP:FILMPLOT. This person's disruption has caused the Angry Grandpa article to be put into protection several times.

So what do we do to stop the disruption? A rangeblock on 216.162.93.30 to 216.162.93.60 would catch the most frequently used range, and of course we can block single IPs that show up. If anybody has other solutions I'd be glad to hear about it. Binksternet (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Is he currently evading any blocks? That would make this a bit easier. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Person edit warring and refusing to discuss proposed merge

User:Dennis Bratland has four times [86] [87] [88] [89] decided to merge two articles because he thinks he owns them. I've asked him to discuss and use the merge procedure at WP:PM [90] but he refuses. Why does he think he does not have to use the discussion Proposed Merge procedure like other people? Amisom (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggest you both start making use of the empty article talk page. I fully protected the entry. El_C 08:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

OK but my understanding is that WP:PM is a mandatory. He can't just edit war to refuse to discuss something which requires consensus. I want an admin to consider the WP:OWN issue here please. Amisom (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Utter hypocrisy. I revered 3 times. Amisom reverted 3 times. I did not start a proposed merge. Amisom did not start a proposed merge. When he tries to get his way, that's acceptable. When I try to get my way, that's "ownership"? His behavior is identical to mine. We have an essay on this kind of hypocrisy: Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't start a proposed merge because I didn't want a merge. Don't be ridiculous. Amisom (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

If it's ridiculous, then why have you gone and done it now? If you had done that instead of reverting, there would be no edit war. An edit war begins with a single revert. That revert was made by you. You didn't post a single word discussion until you had made 3 reverts in a row and had no other choice than come to the bargaining table. The system forced you there. There's no grounds for any further admin action, other than I'd like the personal attack against me removed from the merge discussion. I tried removing the off-topic personal attack but (surprise) Amisom reverted. There should not be one discussion of my behavior over on that talk page while a second one is going on here.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

What have i 'done now'? Proposed a merger? No I have not, Amisom (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack in edit summary -- please remove

I admit to being somewhat testy in the last discussion on Talk:Bellarmine University, but the editor fumed and removed the entire discussion, leaving a nastygram in the edit summary that may be off-putting to others. If it can be disguised or removed, that would be very much appreciated. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 11:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Apparently compromised editor

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

---

User:Oshwah has been making very odd edits for about 30 minutes. The account might be compromised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B300:C700:28AE:A45B:786B:818A (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, I got him. Psst. It's the 1st of April. Sam Walton (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and comments by some users at 2017 dissolution of Venezuelan National Assembly, 2017 Venezuelan self-coup d'état

Two users User:Cambalachero and User:ZiaLater have violated the rules. Cambalachero has made comments at the Talk:2017 Venezuelan self-coup d'état that are against rules in order to justify not moving the article. ZiaLater seems to be been imposing his own POV possibly anti-Maduro government and pro-opposition on the articles and is also edit-warring with me unnecessarily on 2017 dissolution of Venezuelan National Assembly and 2017 Venezuelan self-coup d'état. More surprising that they are breaking the rules despite being experienced.

Background of article

To understand the situation first we have to go into what the article is about. The Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ), which is stated to be filled with sympathizers of President Nicolás Maduro (source:[91]) has taken over the legislative powers of opposition-controlled National Assembly of Venezuela and has effectively dissolved it.(sources:[=http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/30/americas/venezuela-dissolves-national-assembly/], [92]). Per the sources and the article, Maduro has been trying to undermine the legislature for long. The opposition (source: [93]) some international leaders (source:[94]), some analysts described it as self-coup (source: [95]) and media outlets have condemned it as well (example: [96]), some media outlets have also condemned it as a "coup" (example: [97]). However, some of the above sources like [98], [99] and [100] also clearly use the term in a highlighted manner just like I typed, "self-coup" etc or say someone else said it.

Also I'll like to go to some backstory of the edits to properly understand it. The article was created as "2017 Venezuelan coup d'état" by User:Fadesga. This was in contradiction to the content of the source or the reality, the source DW never called it a coup. This source was used iin the article: [101]. User:User:Gustavo Parker changed this to 2017 Venezuelan self-coup d'état which seems to have likely been done based on condemnations of it, but still no reason was given nor sources used. Another user User:Moscow Mule [102] added Wikipedia definition of self-coup and used it as reference which is highly wrong as only sources like news etc should be used. The definition seems clearly lifted from self-coup anyway and was using as a Wikipedia article for a source. These edits all are against rules.

Edits of users

I've explained the background, now about the main point of the disruptive edits of the user I am here to complain about. First I'll like to present their non-neutral statements. In response to User:Everyking's concern about neutrality of the title article in describing it as a coup, User:Cambalachero without reason goes off on to make POV comments and bash Chavez government even though we are not here to do that. He uses a reason like "International reactions seem to be unanimous against dictator Maduro." and calls the contradictions against it being a coup as being promoted by Chavez government stating it is its " official version". Regardless, it was a purely POV statement that is against the rules and had little to do with the actual reason of the neutrality of the title. If it was a justification for the title, then surely it is not appropriate justification and shows an obvious bias. Another non-neutral statement was made again by him after Everyking again asked for a neutral title. Also an OR statement was made by him about the takeover being permant despite no source stating it is so. He made the comment here. More interesting thing is that an IP editor confronted him about him looking biased eariler though he himself seems a bit biased, Cambalachero points him to WP:UNDUE but fails to notice he himself isn't following the rule properly or trying to apply it.

In concerning the article solely, its ZiaLater who is the disruptive one. second edit of User:ZiaLater on the article added a whole background that seems to portray the Nicolas Maduro government as "dictators" but little about their charges on the opposition and the situation which the Supreme tribunal stated that led to the suspension. Per Wikipedia, we must add all points of view. In addition to that he also added an unsourced paragraph in the same edit concerning situation after Hugo Chavez's death and never cared to source it. The further background additions see further negative painting and the dismissal of some lawmakers by Supreme tribunal is also among a background of negative painting: [103], [104]. He also added an OR statement in his edit "The ruling does not include provisions for the eventual restorations of those powers back to the Assembly." despite the source only stating that "It did not indicate if or when it might hand power back." Also CNN clearly has them stating that the suspension of the Assembly is until the contempt action persists and the actions of the national Assembly were invalidated. This is not only unbalanced POV editing, but also ignoring sources and OR. Further edits also seem to be indicative merely of anti-government reports and no government or Supreme tribunal (TSJ) reaction (edit:[105], and also copying as it is from sources like "a rare break in ranks" in this edit which again can be construed as OR.

Also of serious note is his edit warring. I had first moved the title of the page just to satisfy neutrality concerns and follow the rules. First i changed it into [ 2017 annulment of Venezuelan National Assembly 2017 annulment of Venezuelan National Assembly] and later to 2017 dissolution of Venezuelan National Assembly. Also I rewrote the lede to make it look neutral and not like a criticism. Multiple users had concerns that the article's title was neutral. The article was seriously going against Wikipedia guidelines and rules which I states so in my comment and also asked Cambalachero to stop making POV and pure OR statements. ZiaLater however reverted my move and simply copied and pasted the whole content of the article back to 2017 Venezuelan self-coup d'état [106]. This is is against the rules as an article cannot be moved simply by copying and pasting. He however tells me to talk at the talk page even though he himself impatiently goes against the rules and doesn't talk before breaking them and moving the article. He also tried to justify his rule-breaking stating he had to do it since I made multiple articles. Also he made an aggressive statement to me to which I asked him to not break the rules and asked not to indulge in an edit war. Here are both comments: [107]. However he moved the pages again and copied and pasted: [108] [109]. After this I gave him a last warning not to edit-war. Only after [[User:Panam2014] asked him to stop and reverted him did he desist. Same edit-warring has been done on these talk pages: Talk:2017 dissolution of Venezuelan National Assembly, Talk:2017 Venezuelan self-coup d'état and Talk:2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis. See these edits of his [Talk:2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis], [110] and [111].

Additionally this isn't the first time Zialater made such disruptive edits and edit-warred. He has had a large amount of edit-warring with another user User:Tellectualin at Bolivarian propaganda, see its history. the diffs are too numerous to list. Few examples: one of first Tellectualin reverts and counter-revert by ZiaLater, further reverts: [112] and [113]. you'll see in the history that this went on for a long time and kept growing larger in term sof content removed and restored. Whatever the reason such large amount of edit-warring is not acceptable. Whethe rhe was warned for it or not, he still doesn' t seem to be improving much.

Based on the above given reasons, I request the administrators to punish the editors especially Zialater. Cambalachero should be given a warning or at least be told not to make such statements. And Zialater should either be a given a ban or at least a warning that he'll be banned so he desists from such destructive behavior in the future. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute aside the page is now protected till Monday so you've got plenty of time to discuss it over the weekend before making any changes. Also MonsterHunter32 it takes two to edit war Amortias (T)(C) 12:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I do believe in the mainstream opinion, yes. Everyone calls this a self-coup, except those directly benefited (Maduro, and people who work for him). I don't buy their lame excuse that they had to close the congress because they are the helpless victims of an evil right-wing conspiracy, and I don't know of anyone else besides them who does. It's clearly a WP:UNDUE case. But, as far as this page is concerned, I did not insult anyone nor edit warred or move warred. Calling Maduro the way everyone calls him is simply because I prefer to call a spade a spade.

As for the article name, 5 to 3 is not really a clear consensus. The article should stay at the original title during the discussion. --Cambalachero (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: Expressing your personal opinion about a living person, no matter how many people you think agree with you, is a violation of policy. It's also unnecessary while working on an article or discussing how to improve an article. So don't do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Note: I have modified the protection level to extended confirmed and am keeping an eye on it. This article is dealing with a current event of some importance. Additionally we are trying to get it on the front page but it needs some improvements to pass WP:ITNC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cambalachero This was about your comments which are breaking rules. No everyone isn't calling this a self-coup at least not by themselves anf not in a serious news article. Regardless we need to maintain the rules and wait for things to be clear. There were only three people on the talk page with you. I didn't complain about you having consensus or not. Only about your comments. And you have gone much further by falsely alleging me as a "Maduro supporter" even when all my actions have been to maintain neutrality, not in favor of Maduro government nor I made comments in favor of it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Zia's explanation

It seems that MonsterHunter32 is a somewhat new user. Their moving of the article here would have made it easier to revert and make discussing the article easier. However, the page was moved again with a different title, causing difficulties of making any reversions and multiple redirects were occurring. I attempted to bring the article back to its original title and discuss the move of the article further on the talk page, though MonsterHunter didn't seem to agree with that and made assumptions about the motives of users (I also agreed to have a discussion about the article's title and made a proposal and was waiting for discussion before MonsterHunter was even involved with the article). I have been involved in Venezuelan articles for some time and know how contentious they are, which is why I was seeking discussions before pages were moved twice and name-calling occurred (trust me, I try to avoid it, it's not fun). Also, I knew that we were attempting to place this in the news and that all of the edits moving the article would be distracting.

As for MonsterHunter32, it is nice seeing that they are making bold edits, though I wish they would assume good faith and attempt to discuss more. I attempted to assist MonsterHunter32 with a request for comment and sought for a more valuable discussion than "complaining". Instead, they decided to take matters into their own hands and moved it again. Overall, I just tried to keep things in order and help a new user through discussion, but my mistake. My actions were not intended to be of POV pushing or vandalism, like I said above, I was involved in the original discussion about making a title change. I will open up a discussion on the talk page to work on a title and hopefully we can figure this out.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of cited quote at Ernest Bevin

User:2A00:23C4:6392:3C00:CC0E:E611:D9F8:8ABC has three times removed a cited quote about the importance of Ernest Bevin as foreign secretary from the article about him. I have reverted twice with edit summaries suggesting the addition of a different viewpoint with citation rather than removal of a cited quote. I have also tried to start a discussion on the article talk page and users talk page. I don't want to make furtther changes because of 3RR but could someone take a look?— Rod ^talk 15:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The duck test suggests it's probably another sock of HarveyCarter: see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter and User:DelmarAndrews, who can be seen trolling in a similar manner in February 2015 on the same talk page at Talk:Ernest Bevin #Quotation from Bullock. --RexxS (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring to include vanity press

Cagwinn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit-warring, including SHOUTY EDIT SUMMARIES, to include a self-published book on vanity press lulu.com in an article, as a source for the opinion of its author. Cagwinn has appointed himself arbiter of what is acceptable. At Talk:Avalon he seems uninterested in addressing my substantive concerns, instead deciding it's a competition I want to "win" (I don't care about this author, I do care about the thousands of links on Wikipedia to lulu.com sales pages). I see WP:OWN and other issues here. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I think WP:ONUS puts you in the right, and he shouldn't restore a contested source without gaining consensus. But why not go to WP:RSN and resolve it there? I go through articles occasionally and strip out citations to self-published books, too. I don't recall ever having this much trouble keeping one out of an article, but the other guy obviously feels rather strongly that the book is reliable. I'm not aware of a blanket ban on books self-published through lulu.com, though I think the website itself is blacklisted. So, technically, I don't think it's even possible to link to lulu.com sales pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I took it out again. Apart from the fact that Guy is right, I don't see the point of the link anyway - there are four other sources for that sentence, and thus no reason to wedge an extra (dubious) one in. Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

To reiterate what I posted on my personal talk page, as well as the article's talk, the scholar in question (Throop) is cited - apparently without issue - in many Wikipedia articles and, despite the fact that she self-published this particular book, she had other work published by a reliable publishing house and she meets WP guidelines for citation. Guy has been overly aggressive with me from the start and is the one who initiated the edit war. If the consensus is to remove the citation, so be it, but I object to Guy's heavy-handed tactics and bullying of a fellow editor. Cagwinn (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Many links to Throop were added by Liz Henderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account with little interest other than linking that specific author. That's why saying the author is cited in many articles is evidence of nothing other than Wikipedia's vulnerability to spam. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 22:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Colour me unsurprised. That is, in fact, virtually all the mentions that currently exist. Good spot, sir. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Alex Khimich

Now we have another EE editor (around 100 edits) with WP:COMPETENCE issues. They remove the text referenced to The Guardian [114] [115] saying it is not reliable, but they easily add material only sourced to the Ukrainian Wikipedia [116]. After they made the second revert, they went to the talk page describing me as "pro-Russian editor" [117] which is not helpful. To be honest, I am getting seriously tired of Russian and Ukrainian POV pushers who completely ignore our policies because they KNOW THE TRUTH and they think it justifies edit-warring and adding unsourced info, accusing me in pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian position. Many of those are socks, though this user seens to be a genuine one. I seem to be the only active administrator in the area, and I would appreciate some help from the colleagues, possibly adding some of the contentious pages to their watchlists. I am currently afraid of a burnout.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This user removes my edits from article (with citations to governmental websites with corresponding laws described), in article where RU-UK relations described in Eurovision. There is a NECESSITY to describe both points of view when such issues mentioned. Now there is only pro-russian media added by this user at present, and no Ukrainian media. This practice shows that article is being used for Russian lobby. Canceling 3 paragraphs just because 1 (ONE) link to UK wikipedia given along with official gov.ua site to extend last. Also, user cancels added {{neutrality}} template for no reason. Also, I'm not frequent editor here because of many Russians lobbyists here, so that's why here I have just 100+ edits. This user says "many POV pushers here", still being one of them. If this article is to describe everything from point of view from Russia, so let it be. I'm not truth fighter, Wikipedia will lose from such "neutrality". The Guardian's post title does not cite in verbatim the letter of EBU (I read this letter), producing rumors here. Thanks. P.S. Take this Eurovision away from us, but don't lie. — Alex Khimich (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion on my talk page, User talk:Ymblanter#Eurovision 2017, demonstrates indeed serious WP:COMPETENCE issues. The user indeed believes that reliable sources are official documents, even after I directed them to WP:RS which details the difference between primary and secondary sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The user continued reverting [118], needs to be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You can't have an article about "Russia–Ukraine relations in the Eurovision Song Contest" and then not expect trouble there. Count Iblis (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Do you recommend me to unwatch it? --Ymblanter (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you can look at whether this article fits in of these ArbCom's discretionary sanctions lists. I was active on some Israel-Palestine related articles a long time ago (long before there was a big ArbCom case about such articles), at some point I decided to just unwatch all of these articles because you can't keep on arguing for and maintain certain standards when other editors are not going to support that effort. But today we have a lot more articles that fall under ArbCom's discretionary sanctions system... Count Iblis (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

ARBPIA is indeed difficult, I tried to do smth there a couple of times, got booed by both sides who obviously knew the TRUTH, and since then my interaction with Israeli/Palestinian articles was mostly to protect them. The article we are discussing is clearly under ARBEE (Eastern Europe), and the user has been already alerted of the sanctions, but they do not seem to care. They seriously consider me as pro-Russian POV pusher.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter and Count Iblis: Nothing of these might happen if not someone's total disrespect and complete deletion of edit. Well Ymblanter could correct links, remind about RS, facts, instead he decided to clean it out, thinking me to be newbie with 100+ commits, remove disputed template just because he is here in high position. Folks, the truth is what we both want, respect others opinions while you write about them. — Alex Khimich (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Dan56

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

---

I wish to report User:Dan56 for acting as though he owned Too Much Too Soon (album). I'd like to change the caption for a picture of the band from "The New York Dolls in 1973" to "The band in 1973", and he simply will not accept it. He reverts it twice and gives me two clearly irrelevant reasons for doing so (see the page history), he then reverts it again without giving a reason at all and tells me to stop on my talk page, I accuse him of attempting to exercise ownership over the article and he doesn't respond (despite making numerous contributions in the meantime), I ping him and he still doesn't respond, so I revert it again and he re-reverts it once more and simply accuses me of edit warring, once again without a reason for reverting it in the first place. This specific issue probably could be resolved on the article's talk page, but I don't want to let him simply get away with attempting to exercise ownership over Wikipedia content. Esszet (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You both are edit warring... RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, now I'm here, and he may be sanctioned anyway by User:El_C; no further action may be necessary. Esszet (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think that it would be best for both you and Dan56 to stop editing the article, or at the very least to use the talk page. Also, aren't you also exercising ownership of the article by trying to keep it a specific way? Really, both of you need to use the talk page, or, preferably, stop editing the article altogether. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please note that neither editor has posted anything on the article's talk page. Also, that Dan56 is frequently brought here because of article ownership behavior. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

*sigh* @MShabazz: Dan56 (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think what I'm doing is unreasonable or capricious; it sounds silly to say "The New York Dolls" when "The band" would be just fine. I did attempt to talk to him about it – on my talk page, and if he won't say anything there, I don't see why he'd say anything on the article's talk page. Esszet (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

But you have to at least make an attempt to discuss it on the article talk page, so that others can participate and help. However, only Dan56 breached 3RR. El_C 23:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the dates. I'm just going to protect the page and direct both participants to the talk page. El_C 23:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't exactly matter what you are edit-warring over, it really just matters that you are edit-warring and that all the potential avenues of dispute resolution have not been taken. It is better to try and fail then to not try when one would have succeeded. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Why should the burden fall on me to open a discussion when I've made a reasonable argument and cited relevant caption guidelines disputing the other editor's position and bold edit? Dan56 (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Uh, what? And sure, I could, but I almost certainly would have come here even if I won the dispute there – what he's doing is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy either way. Esszet (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It should fall on both of the editors. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

As I've said, I could take it to the talk page, but I almost certainly would have come here anyway. Esszet (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, since this seems to be going nowhere, it seems best that we all stop editing for a bit (here) and discuss this issue on the talk page. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. El_C 23:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

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