Renamed user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3 (talk | contribs) →Suspicious mass creation: redact |
|||
Line 335: | Line 335: | ||
*This came after another [[WP:AE]] revert-war case where administrator [[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] asked E-960 to voluntarily abstain from the page in question for 72 hours, in light of E-960’s assurance that they will be more careful in future: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive231#E-960] |
*This came after another [[WP:AE]] revert-war case where administrator [[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] asked E-960 to voluntarily abstain from the page in question for 72 hours, in light of E-960’s assurance that they will be more careful in future: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive231#E-960] |
||
*[[User:E-960|E-960]] has recently been asked by [[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] to “chill out”. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AE-960&type=revision&diff=863438092&oldid=863427202] . |
*[[User:E-960|E-960]] has recently been asked by [[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] to “chill out”. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AE-960&type=revision&diff=863438092&oldid=863427202] . |
||
*[[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] has messaged [[User:E-960|E-960]] to say: ''Hi, I am leaving a quick note to let you know that I did not find these Talk page comments to be helpful: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACollaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland&type=revision&diff=860667329&oldid=860658568]. Talk pages are for discussion of content, not contributors. I would appreciate it if you did not unnecessarily personalised disputes. This could potentially drive off other editors if they find the atmosphere too unpleasant. Thank you.'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AE-960&type=revision&diff=860760169&oldid=857054920] |
|||
*I myself disengaged from editing and discussion with [[User:E-960|E-960]] around 15 months ago, here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Poland/Archive_7#E-960_and_WP:OWN] |
*I myself disengaged from editing and discussion with [[User:E-960|E-960]] around 15 months ago, here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Poland/Archive_7#E-960_and_WP:OWN] |
||
*Since then I have suspended work on an article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see [[WP:ARBEE]]), named [[Collaboration in German-occupied Poland]], in response to an edit by [[User:E-960|E-960]] there. To my mind in breach of the spirit of these sanctions, [[User:E-960|E-960]] reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland&type=revision&diff=861558024&oldid=861557360] my addition of sourced content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland&type=revision&diff=861558024&oldid=861557360] which I had discussed my rationale for on the Talk page first, and part of which [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] had endorsed with a public thanks, meaning [[User:E-960|E-960]] was pointedly disregarding consensus. As you’ll see from the Talk page, the aim of my addition had been to establish article stability by at least having a definition of controversial terms that in my view was causing editors to argue at cross -purposes; [[User:E-960|E-960]]’s edit summary shows their own definition of the term Polish “collaboration” rules out Polish “anti-semitism”, as if [[User:E-960|E-960]]’s knows the universal truth. |
*Since then I have suspended work on an article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see [[WP:ARBEE]]), named [[Collaboration in German-occupied Poland]], in response to an edit by [[User:E-960|E-960]] there. To my mind in breach of the spirit of these sanctions, [[User:E-960|E-960]] reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland&type=revision&diff=861558024&oldid=861557360] my addition of sourced content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland&type=revision&diff=861558024&oldid=861557360] which I had discussed my rationale for on the Talk page first, and part of which [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] had endorsed with a public thanks, meaning [[User:E-960|E-960]] was pointedly disregarding consensus. As you’ll see from the Talk page, the aim of my addition had been to establish article stability by at least having a definition of controversial terms that in my view was causing editors to argue at cross -purposes; [[User:E-960|E-960]]’s edit summary shows their own definition of the term Polish “collaboration” rules out Polish “anti-semitism”, as if [[User:E-960|E-960]]’s knows the universal truth. |
Revision as of 05:06, 12 October 2018
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. 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) |
|
BATTLEGROUND and SPA by Iwog
- Iwog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- False accusation of rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iwog today expressed that "This page is overflowing with errors, deception, and bias and I think it's worth going to war over
regarding an issue on False accusation of rape ([1]). This user has edited solely on this article and its associated talk page. They made a few edits initially over the presentation of percentages in the article's lead and later adding a sentence to the lead that, to me, appeared to be a tendentious edits to try to comment about the "flip" of the topic ([2], [3]). This user has repeatedly opined about the "bias", "lies", and "dishonesty" in the article and that the lead is "written intentionally to deceive
".
I am requesting admins and/or the community review this user's behavior. To me, this user's behavior seems very disruptive. I know I have stronger-than-average feelings about this topic, so I'm also asking for a "reality check" that this user is indeed being a problem and that it is not my own stances on the issue making me view their behavior as such. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. It seems like this editor is more interested in pushing their POV rather than interest in verifiability. In fact, this editor mentions "accuracy" multiple times in edit summaries [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. In the third diff, the editor engages in the fallacy that the truth is always "somewhere in the middle". Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and it's clear that this editor isn't here to contribute to the project but to crusade against perceived underreporting of false rape. The editor even says they're "going to war", which is good evidence that they're viewing this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and not engaging with the project in good faith. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- The main complaint against me seems to be one of semantics. Since I'm new here, I was not aware that "going to war for truth" made my contributions into a battleground and you will find the rest of the subject is treated objectively. Although links were given for my use of the word "accuracy", no links nor any quotes were given that in any way indicated I was insisting "the truth is in the middle". I am well aware that this topic is rife with strong emotions on both sides which makes it vitally important that it is treated coldly and objectively. IMO the article is far from objective and contains much bias which I have detailed in great length. The accusation that I am not here to contribute is false. I am only here to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwog (talk • contribs) 23:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- After reviewing my actual quote, "The actual number lies somewhere in the middle", I will clarify that my intention was to say the true number can lie anywhere within the data set bracketed by both known ends of the spectrum. I can see how this was misinterpreted. At no time did I ever intend to claim a number was half way in between or located anywhere within the set of unknowns. This is not a fallacy, in fact it's a statement of mathematical fact. Iwog (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Can I suggest to you that maybe you should start with topics you don't feel so strongly about first, then? You should learn the ropes first before diving into articles that have the discretionary sanctions warning. For example, read up on WP:V. Accuracy is not a standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. You can believe whatever you want is "accurate", but we only include content that is verifiable. You don't seem to have a grasp of basics like these so I recommend that you edit in other areas first rather than edit war against multiple editors. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Once again I have to take issue with your use of semantics here. I am not using the term "accuracy" to indicate anything other than adherence to the citations being presented. In short, the way I am using the term is ONLY about statements on the page being verifiable.Iwog (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Added: This is the first instance you cited: [9] It is clear that I am arguing for the inclusion of a large set of unknowns which is present in every single study being referenced. It's obvious that "accuracy" here means adherence to facts that can be verified. Iwog (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- We've actually already explained to you that including the conviction rate with the fully intended implication of "any report that doesn't result in a conviction is or could be false" is a WP:OR violation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes you've explained it but you are wrong. Currently the implication is "any report that cannot be prove false is true". Please explain how this isn't a WP:OR violation since every study admits unknowns exceeding 80%? Iwog (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- That implication is also present in virtually all of the published research on this and every other kind of crime victimization: crime stats are usually based reported crimes, and these victimizations presumed true unless there is evidence that an assault did not happen. To be clear, "evidence" is a much lower standard than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" - the figures reported in the research don't represent "proven" false allegations at all, they represent allegations where there was a good reason to believe the accusation was false. Perhaps you think we should record crime victimizations differently, but Wikipedia adheres to reliable sources. Nblund talk 15:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but you are not correct and the implication that you are stating is completely absent from any study cited on that page. In most cases, allegations are only deemed false when law enforcement deems an allegation as unfounded or provably false. Considering the liability taken on by law enforcement when they make a wrong determination, the VAST majority of cases where there is any question of legitimacy will be kicked further down the line for investigation and/or referred to a prosecutor. In fact we can cite RAINN itself to see how rare this is. RAINN reports that a mere 3% of all cases have enough legitimacy to be sent to a prosecutor. This citation proves, by itself, that the presumption CANNOT be 5% in any study. How in any conceivable universe can an actual 5% false allegation rate co-exist in the world with a real 3% prosecution rate ASSUMING POLICE ARE THE ONES MAKING THE DETERMINATION IN ALL OF THE STUDIES?? I'm sorry but the preface in this section is grossly misrepresenting the data. Iwog (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Iwog, in this revert that you describe as "far more accurate," you add text reading
Likewise it is also generally agreed upon only about 1 to 5% of total rape allegations will lead to a conviction by a court of law and can be presumed to be true.
This asserts, without evidence, that "conviction by a court of law" and "can be presumed to be true" are synonymous... yet a failure to convict can occur because the jury thinks an accusation is true but is not convinced beyond all reasonable doubt. It can occur when 11 jurors are utterly convinced and one hold-out is being stubborn for reasons unrelated to the case. It can occur because the evidence relating to sexual assaults can be thin as such crimes often happen in private locations without witnesses and as victims may not immediately report, resulting in a lack of corroborating physical evidence. Convictions can also occur when the evidence is thin and the jury is biased - look at the number of unsafe convictions that have occurred due to racial prejudice, as one example. Do you maintain that a jury conviction is needed for a victim's statement that s/he was raped to be presumed to be true? EdChem (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)- No I'm maintaining that it is absolutely absurd to claim 5% of all rape allegations are false, a conviction rate (including a citation) is 1%, and the remaining 94% of all cases can be assumed to be true. It is outrageous that this implication is made in the preface considering no study used as a source is claiming to contain the actual false accusation rate, only those deemed false by law enforcement. Furthermore I've laid out how the opening paragraph wrongly connects two completely different concepts and makes it appear to be talking about the same thing. I've had no response at all to that specific and provable claim. At the very least, it fails high school grammar and I'm not being hyperbolic. Name the subject of the second sentence if you don't believe me. Iwog (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- That implication is also present in virtually all of the published research on this and every other kind of crime victimization: crime stats are usually based reported crimes, and these victimizations presumed true unless there is evidence that an assault did not happen. To be clear, "evidence" is a much lower standard than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" - the figures reported in the research don't represent "proven" false allegations at all, they represent allegations where there was a good reason to believe the accusation was false. Perhaps you think we should record crime victimizations differently, but Wikipedia adheres to reliable sources. Nblund talk 15:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes you've explained it but you are wrong. Currently the implication is "any report that cannot be prove false is true". Please explain how this isn't a WP:OR violation since every study admits unknowns exceeding 80%? Iwog (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- We've actually already explained to you that including the conviction rate with the fully intended implication of "any report that doesn't result in a conviction is or could be false" is a WP:OR violation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Can I suggest to you that maybe you should start with topics you don't feel so strongly about first, then? You should learn the ropes first before diving into articles that have the discretionary sanctions warning. For example, read up on WP:V. Accuracy is not a standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. You can believe whatever you want is "accurate", but we only include content that is verifiable. You don't seem to have a grasp of basics like these so I recommend that you edit in other areas first rather than edit war against multiple editors. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Iwog is a pure WP:SPA and obviously came into WP hot; this is pretty obvious subtweeting of the Kavanaugh matter. I propose a TBAN for anything related to gender-relations under the gamergate DS; any admin can do this. This person needs to stay away from this topic that is too-charged for them, and try to learn what we do here and how we do it, on non-controversial topics. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- I would support this. Iwog's userpage suggests a pretty close connection to the Men's Rights Movement - I don't think this necessarily precludes them from ever editing productively on gender issues, but they clearly have more passion than knowledge and they need time to learn the ropes elsewhere. Nblund talk 15:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't believe men's rights activists can ever productively edit on gender topics unless they show proof that they're genuinely remorseful and denounce it. Men's rights activism is hate speech and has no place on the encyclopedia. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Agree++. Suggest topic ban from gender and sexuality, broadly construed, per the GamerGate Discretionary Sanctions--Jorm (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Seriously? Misguided, misinformed, and sometimes-to-frequently used as cover for sexist beliefs and language, but "hate speech" is an overkill claim, as is the notion that people who don't share your beliefs should be barred from editing certain topics. That's really not how WP is supposed to work, unless such people are bringing disruption with them, which should be decided on an individual basis. Statements like this just serve as fodder for the "left is out to get us" conspiracy theories, anyway. Grandpallama (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is unfriendly enough to women and other minorities as it is. If you want Wikipedia to offer safe haven to misogynists on gender topics, then by all means, advocate for misogyny. It's my personal opinion that hatred has no place here. And no, I don't want to ban people that disagree with me, or I'd be asking for bans against everyone who voted differently from me on WP:AFD. Please don't mischaracterize my opinion as "ban people who disagree with me". – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Characterizing people on the conservative end of the sociopolitical spectrum as engaging in hate speech is not appropriate, unless they engage in actual hate speech. Implying that I'm advocating for misogyny is dangerously close to a personal attack and also not appropriate. Pointing out that you are suggesting you'd like to ban people from editing on this topic who disagree with you is a perfectly accurate characterization of the extreme position you laid out, including the expectation that there should be public apologies that demonstrate "genuine" remorse. Wikipedia should be a safe place for everyone who edits it, and those who engage in any unacceptable behavior should be immediately addressed, but expanding the definition of that behavior to include positions you dislike by trying to classify them in a new way while also expecting displays of contrition in order to earn the right to edit again is misguided. And, as I said, it feeds the trolls who seize upon such statements as proof that Wikipedia is some sort of weird leftist hotbed, which it is not. Anyway, this is tangential to the specific behavioral question that was brought here. Grandpallama (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- What in the world? You realize I'm not saying "ban all conservatives from Wikipedia for being misogynists", right? Mens rights activism was specifically identified by the SPLC as a hate group. It is not controversial to suggest that hate groups like white supremacists, male supremacists, and Nazis should not be allowed to edit in areas where they have an agenda of hate to push, and I would like you to reconsider the difference between advocating that hate be restricted from certain areas on Wikipedia and restricting people I disagree with from talking. There's a world of difference between the two. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- What in the world is right, as I think we're not exactly so far apart. As I said, hate speech should be restricted, but it should also be recognized that the SPLC (and even our own page on the so-called MRM) draws some distinctions between "male supremacy" (which is what it categorizes as hate groups/speech/activity and what I now think you were specifically saying you'd like to see outed as such) and the men's rights silliness, and acknowledges (as I did) that there are some legitimate voices in the latter that don't necessarily fall into the former. Every male supremacist is into men's rights activism, but not all of the goofy men's rights activists are male supremacists. Most of the ones I encounter on a daily basis who describe themselves as men's rights activists are just anti-feminists or traditionalists who exhibit some ignorance or poorly thought-out positions, and say largely stupid (but not really hateful) things, rather than seek to advance some sort of actual ideological creed. I actually think we're on the same page and just disagreeing over a point of semantics. If you are saying that male supremacy is hate speech and has no place on the encyclopedia, then we're simpatico. Grandpallama (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- The only thing the MRM has had even a remotely valid point to make about since the mid 1990's is that father's are more frequently given the short end of the stick in family court and that some feminists occasionally say hysterical things. Literally everything else they go on about is pure misogyny, and misogyny is absolutely "hate speech". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- And if we see something hateful said, misogynistic or otherwise, we should respond accordingly. But there are a lot of people who self-identify as men's rights activists who are really just highly conservative. I'm not advocating giving any room for hate speech. Grandpallama (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- I dunno, @MjolnirPants: I was waiting in line for the toilet the other day, and I was thinking "Man, if that thing with Chandler seeing a woman walking out of the men's room and she said that there was someone in the ladies' room and she just couldn't wait actually happened, she'd totally get away with it, but if a guy did the same thing and tried to use the women's bathroom he'd be immediately tagged as a prevert, even though men who would want to go into the ladies' room for a reason like that are probably a much smaller minority of men than men who legitimately really needed to go". :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Bah, I used to go into the ladies rooms all the time and never got much more than a curious look. Of course, at the time, I was pushing one of my sons around in a stroller that carried a certain malodorous aura that any parent would recognize, and there was no changing table in the men's room. But, to be fair, I'm 6 feet tall, was around 230lbs at the time and had a beard, two arms full of ink and just all around looked about as scummy as I am. If I didn't have the kid with me, I might as well have tattooed "convicted rapist (and occasional drug dealer)" on my forehead. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I dunno, @MjolnirPants: I was waiting in line for the toilet the other day, and I was thinking "Man, if that thing with Chandler seeing a woman walking out of the men's room and she said that there was someone in the ladies' room and she just couldn't wait actually happened, she'd totally get away with it, but if a guy did the same thing and tried to use the women's bathroom he'd be immediately tagged as a prevert, even though men who would want to go into the ladies' room for a reason like that are probably a much smaller minority of men than men who legitimately really needed to go". :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- And if we see something hateful said, misogynistic or otherwise, we should respond accordingly. But there are a lot of people who self-identify as men's rights activists who are really just highly conservative. I'm not advocating giving any room for hate speech. Grandpallama (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- The only thing the MRM has had even a remotely valid point to make about since the mid 1990's is that father's are more frequently given the short end of the stick in family court and that some feminists occasionally say hysterical things. Literally everything else they go on about is pure misogyny, and misogyny is absolutely "hate speech". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- What in the world is right, as I think we're not exactly so far apart. As I said, hate speech should be restricted, but it should also be recognized that the SPLC (and even our own page on the so-called MRM) draws some distinctions between "male supremacy" (which is what it categorizes as hate groups/speech/activity and what I now think you were specifically saying you'd like to see outed as such) and the men's rights silliness, and acknowledges (as I did) that there are some legitimate voices in the latter that don't necessarily fall into the former. Every male supremacist is into men's rights activism, but not all of the goofy men's rights activists are male supremacists. Most of the ones I encounter on a daily basis who describe themselves as men's rights activists are just anti-feminists or traditionalists who exhibit some ignorance or poorly thought-out positions, and say largely stupid (but not really hateful) things, rather than seek to advance some sort of actual ideological creed. I actually think we're on the same page and just disagreeing over a point of semantics. If you are saying that male supremacy is hate speech and has no place on the encyclopedia, then we're simpatico. Grandpallama (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- What in the world? You realize I'm not saying "ban all conservatives from Wikipedia for being misogynists", right? Mens rights activism was specifically identified by the SPLC as a hate group. It is not controversial to suggest that hate groups like white supremacists, male supremacists, and Nazis should not be allowed to edit in areas where they have an agenda of hate to push, and I would like you to reconsider the difference between advocating that hate be restricted from certain areas on Wikipedia and restricting people I disagree with from talking. There's a world of difference between the two. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Characterizing people on the conservative end of the sociopolitical spectrum as engaging in hate speech is not appropriate, unless they engage in actual hate speech. Implying that I'm advocating for misogyny is dangerously close to a personal attack and also not appropriate. Pointing out that you are suggesting you'd like to ban people from editing on this topic who disagree with you is a perfectly accurate characterization of the extreme position you laid out, including the expectation that there should be public apologies that demonstrate "genuine" remorse. Wikipedia should be a safe place for everyone who edits it, and those who engage in any unacceptable behavior should be immediately addressed, but expanding the definition of that behavior to include positions you dislike by trying to classify them in a new way while also expecting displays of contrition in order to earn the right to edit again is misguided. And, as I said, it feeds the trolls who seize upon such statements as proof that Wikipedia is some sort of weird leftist hotbed, which it is not. Anyway, this is tangential to the specific behavioral question that was brought here. Grandpallama (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is unfriendly enough to women and other minorities as it is. If you want Wikipedia to offer safe haven to misogynists on gender topics, then by all means, advocate for misogyny. It's my personal opinion that hatred has no place here. And no, I don't want to ban people that disagree with me, or I'd be asking for bans against everyone who voted differently from me on WP:AFD. Please don't mischaracterize my opinion as "ban people who disagree with me". – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't believe men's rights activists can ever productively edit on gender topics unless they show proof that they're genuinely remorseful and denounce it. Men's rights activism is hate speech and has no place on the encyclopedia. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- I would support this. Iwog's userpage suggests a pretty close connection to the Men's Rights Movement - I don't think this necessarily precludes them from ever editing productively on gender issues, but they clearly have more passion than knowledge and they need time to learn the ropes elsewhere. Nblund talk 15:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Support any and all sanctions that are on the tableI've gone on record as rejecting the usefulness of TBANning SPAs, so I would support a community indef block, or a block with a broad TBAN set as the unblock condition. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Changed to just block the NOTHERE sock-abusing troll. Nothing more needs to be said. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Possibly related: although Iwog has largely gone silent, a MugyuToChu (talk · contribs) was created this morning sided with Iwog in her first and only edit about 20 minute later. I'm not crazy for thinking this seems like a very hamhanded attempt at trolling or concealing sock puppetry, right? Nblund talk 22:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you User:Nblund for pointing this out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- I just saw this notification at the top of the page. I am a feminist and one of the first articles I looked at was this one because of the Kavanaugh issue going on right now. I'm surprised at the rude reception I'm getting. If I understand what the BATTLEGROUND law means, then Jijiri88, Roscolese, and Nblund definitely seem to be violating it with how they're treating me. It's a shame, because looking at their edits all three also appear to be feminists. Can't we all get along? MugyuToChu (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Obvious sock/troll/joe job blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- I just saw this notification at the top of the page. I am a feminist and one of the first articles I looked at was this one because of the Kavanaugh issue going on right now. I'm surprised at the rude reception I'm getting. If I understand what the BATTLEGROUND law means, then Jijiri88, Roscolese, and Nblund definitely seem to be violating it with how they're treating me. It's a shame, because looking at their edits all three also appear to be feminists. Can't we all get along? MugyuToChu (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you User:Nblund for pointing this out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Possibly related: although Iwog has largely gone silent, a MugyuToChu (talk · contribs) was created this morning sided with Iwog in her first and only edit about 20 minute later. I'm not crazy for thinking this seems like a very hamhanded attempt at trolling or concealing sock puppetry, right? Nblund talk 22:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- Here's Iwog on their hobby horse: "Likewise it is also generally agreed upon only about 1 to 5% of total rape allegations will lead to a conviction by a court of law and can be presumed to be true." One step at a time: there is no "likewise". One source, this source, cannot establish "generally agreed upon". Where is the "1-5%" on this page? "Total rape allegations"--the source provides data from the US; globalize, Iwog. Finally, "and can be presumed to be true" is complete BS: it's original research, POV commentary. Iwog will have us believe that 95 to 99% of rape allegations are likely false? And all this in the lede (or lead, whatever...). So, we have here a toxic soup of SPA, POV, OR, and possibly CIR (every step I laid out involves incompetence of some sort--rhetorical, logical, situational). Place a topic ban, or (someone) impose something useful via Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Support TBAN for gender-related topics under the Gamergate DS. A clear SPA for the area, with continued disruption and a lack of a learning curve. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
So, when is somebody gonna block this guy?
Sorry to paraphrase the worst extra ever, but the above-cited WP:DUCK behaviour is grounds for immediate indefinite block of both accounts. @Yunshui: Sorry to ping you, but you're kinda my go-to for sockpuppetry issues, and buried at the bottom of a relatively stale ANI thread this ran the risk of not being noticed before getting archived. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry to say, but it's not going to be me (nor Drmies, who has also run an inconclusive CU with regards to this). There's no technical evidence linking the two accounts, and as yet I don't think the behavioural evidence is sufficient (suspicious, yes; suspicious enough to warrant the check - but not enough to warrant a block in the absence of anything else). No comment on the rest of the above. Yunshui 雲水 08:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- The sock that turned up the other day, was CU'd to be User:Architect 134, a notorious false-flag trouble maker in the Nsmutte vein. This could be similar, although it's quacking loudly - who spells the first paragraph of an article "lede" with their very first edit? Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yunshui is correct--that is, there is no support for a CU block. And while some editors deserve to be blocked for one single edit, this is not yet the case. Black Kite, I believe you are correct too: this is a troublemaker, and it certainly quacks, but given the repetitive nature of trolling, who knows. At any rate, if this ever turns into an RfC or a more formal discussion, an admin/seasoned editor will know how to weigh such drive-by comments... Drmies (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- The sock that turned up the other day, was CU'd to be User:Architect 134, a notorious false-flag trouble maker in the Nsmutte vein. This could be similar, although it's quacking loudly - who spells the first paragraph of an article "lede" with their very first edit? Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Adding on to the WP:DUCK, there's this diff [10] that Simonvino immediately tried to undo when they realized they'd given themselves away as Iwog. Pretty sure the "talk page discussion" and "dragged to ANI by agenda motivated editors" is Iwog forgetting that they're on on the Simonvino account. Not to mention this really silly edit on User:MugyuToChu's user page [11]. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Er no - Simonvino wasn't Iwog, they were User:Architect 134, that was proved by a CU. It's actually pretty typical joe-jobbing by A134 - writing something that "gives them away", then immediately reverting it as if they've suddenly reaslised what they've done. User:Nsmutte has been known to pull the same trick. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oh. Well, that's weird. I guess I should've known better. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- This person has not edited since Sept 28, per their contribs. Gone to ground, or gone? I still think an indef is appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that nothing I have ever written is as personally slanderous or as indicative of a battleground violation than many things contained on this very page. I wonder how the rules are applied these days? Iwog (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- ah it was gone to ground. They are back in the same battering style as before. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Would someone mind imposing a block on The Drover's Wife for hoaxing and personal attacks? She's persistently adding a claim that slavery existed in the Broome article in the late 19th century, despite the cited source never making such a statement; and when I've reverted, all I've gotten is personal attacks.
Background: the article states that slavery and slavery-like conditions existed in this place in the 1880s, but as slavery was ended in 1833, I removed the statement. To my surprise, I was reverted with a fierce response, and while giving a warning at her talk, I noted that the cited source never said that slavery existed at this site. (The source's only uses of the string slav
are a bit about slavery-like conditions and a note about the 1833 action, page 45; a note that "reports" of slavery were made, page 110; and a citation to a work with slaves in the title, page 217.) She re-reverted, which I again reverted and accompanied with a stern warning about hoaxing, and all that happened was a re-re-revert. [I'm at 2RR, but I'm not going to 3RR (as she already has), let alone surpassing it.] Moreover, I've been given repeated baseless allegations: I'm "misrepresenting both the detail and character of sources", I'm "flagrantly misrepresenting a source", and I'm trying to "play unsupportable ideological games".
Adding a claim of X with a citation is a claim that the cited source says X: if it does not, you've added a hoax. (Moreover, remember that WP:V demands a citation that directly supports anything that's been challenged, and I've demonstrated that the citation does not support the challenged content.) There's room for lenience the first time (typos, misunderstanding the source, etc.), but when you're repeatedly reverted with warnings and yet you restore the hoax and respond as I note above, it's beyond time for lenience. Moreover, WP:WIAPA provides that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are a kind of personal attacks, and she's presented no evidence for source misrepresentation or doing something for any reason other than enforcing compliance with the sources. [Hint: I've never heard of Broome before, and I wasn't aware that there was a dispute on this subject; I couldn't have had an opinion on the question.] There's no room for tolerating the combination of hoaxing and personal attacks. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- User Nyttend seems not to have any knowledge of Blackbirding in Australia, and appears to be involved in an edit war. Another uninvolved editor has suggested that the discussion be moved to the Australian Wikipedians' notice board for improvements to this article, and I've added a couple other related articles to that discussion that also need better references. Bahudhara (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- This is surreal. Nyttend has a very strong point-of-view (that slavery in Australia definitively never existed because of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 and because of his own opinion as to the definition of slavery (which differs from the statutory definition of slavery in both the UK and Australia). Neither of these points of view are well supported in reliable sources. I reinserted content that was supported by the cited source. These are obviously complex issues, and I am very open to different wording - all I'm definitively opposed to is Nyttend's blanket POV. Nyttend's entire response to this issue has been to repeatedly accuse me of "hoaxing" for not sharing his POV, threaten to have me blocked and revert without explanation.
- Considering Nyttend has repeatedly accused me of "hoaxing" for insisting on a mainstream interpretation of Australian history, it is a bit rich to claim that I'm the one making personal attacks. He claimed a source published by the Australian Heritage Commission was written by "environment specialists" and not historians in a false attempt to dismiss it. He suggests that the source did not support a reference to "slavery", when it plainly does in context - again, happy to workshop language as to exactly what one says about the disputed section (again, this stuff is obviously nuanced and complex), just opposed to the attempt to remove any reference to slavery in any context. Nyttend's behaviour has been ridiculously aggressive from the get-go and is blocking what seems to be a reasonably easy issue to resolve if one focuses on sources instead of his established and overtly-stated point of view. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- An editor I've never come across just posted this link from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on my talk page, which is another brilliant example of the sort of mainstream history that Jyttend has threatened to have me banned for including because it differs from his personal POV. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- I requested the two editors to note the issue is better in the Australian project - to try to lose the personal point making. As what happens when it gets lost in the interpersonal unnecessarily. Please see Australian the notice board to see why I suggested as such. Please also see the article itself to see why I believe there are some apologies required, and the term 'hoaxing' dropped. JarrahTree 02:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment from an uninvolved editor, looks like a content dispute that shouldn't have escalated to the point where an WP:ANI report was necessary, it's definitely not a hoax, I posted some references at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board to illustrate it is the mainstream view of Australian history. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nyttend claims slavery could not exist because slavery was illegal and the first sentence of Wikipedia's Slavery article defines slavery as de jure.[12] Yes, the UK parliament did pass the Slavery Abolition Act 1833; it also passed the Modern Slavery Act 2015 because slavery has persisted. That is not a hoax. Experienced Wikipedia editors should know that the first sentence of a Wikipedia article is not always perfect. 92.19.29.177 (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- This item needs closing as resolved. Neither of the main protagonists in this argument seem the slightest interested in closing the issues specifically here. The placement of further information at WP:AWNB sidesteps the conflict here, but places further evidence suggesting that there is no hoax on the part of well intentioned writers on the subject.JarrahTree 23:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- The content dispute is pretty obviously solved at this point, yes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I do note that Nyttend's only response to the various responses here and at WP:AWNB has been to post on his talk page accusing everyone who replied of "defending abuse of sources" and complaining that the responses were "patronising comments with no basis in reality" for not sharing his opinion. This is unbelievable behaviour for an administrator. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment by uninvolved administrator: I see some initial edit warring by several parties. I also find much of the participation by The Drover's Wife tends to increase tension and ill-will; a certain abrasiveness there is not helping. All this said, after 3 reverts from either side the dispute moved onto the talk page. It has remained there. Suggest no action. AGK ■ 11:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- Unhelpful behaviour on both sides, an obnoxious collaborator versus this excessive response, I prefer to avoid the first and am dismayed that the second, an admin fwiw, appears to be disparaging other users and drama mongering to serve a reactionary pov (I hope that is wrong). I think a respected peer should remind other admins of what we are doing here. — cygnis insignis 20:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment by another uninvolved administrator: I'm seeing here symptoms of another long-term Wikipedian heading towards terminal burnout. -- llywrch (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment it does on the face of things looks like another Wikipedian burnout but it appears to be building to something more unsightly that will require a response from ANI or possibly ARBCOM in the future. The reference to slavery like conditions existing in Broome is itself accurate and continued to some extent across the region until the Noonkanbah dispute of 1970's. Gnangarra 23:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Railroad IP
What needs to be done regarding the railroad IP? See, for example, 42.110.135.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 42.110.132.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) At User talk:42.110.135.220, I warned the IP about incorrect formatting, but the IP is still at it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
And there is reference removal or reference changes, such as here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
EEng's humor confounds as usual... (non-fun police closure) TheDragonFire (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- The joke is off the tracks like this discussion. I see no way to get a grip on this w/o a range block. It may be they are missing warnings if their IP changes w. each login. I don't think a
rnagerange block would create a lot of collateral damage.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Widespread insertion of bogus references and incorrect information
It looks like Mill 1 (talk · contribs) has been adding quite a few bogus references and incorrect information to WP:DOY articles. See discussion starting at User_talk:Mill_1#Info_not_found and the following section.
For most editors, I'd WP:AGF, or maybe WP:CIR but given the rants in this discussion about how the change requiring sources for additions to DOY articles is going to fail and then later stating "I have decided not to comply with it and I accept any consequences.", it appears that we have a serious case of WP:SNEAKY vandalism that appears to have potentially far-reaching impact as this editor is quite active on year pages and DOY pages.
I've seen folks not drop the stick, but this looks like sabotage. Toddst1 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Toddst1: I'd really expect to see more evidence than you've given for this being vandalism. It is naturally going to be harder to find reliable sources for people with birth and death dates going back into the middle ages and beyond, and I'm guessing that Mill 1 (talk · contribs) is having difficulty tracking them down. Deb (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- This comment from Mill 1, in the context of all this, looks like baiting: "It is going to be really interesting watching the project members enforcing the new level of sourcing regarding new entries on WP:DOY" which was never
struckretracted. It certainly paints his actions in a seriously questionable light.
- This comment from Mill 1, in the context of all this, looks like baiting: "It is going to be really interesting watching the project members enforcing the new level of sourcing regarding new entries on WP:DOY" which was never
- If we want to put aside the fact that he's said he decided not to comply with the requirement for sources and the baiting above, and we wanted to act with the greatest of naivete, we're left with WP:CIR and a bunch of crap added to articles that needs to be combed through along with an editor that should not continue editing. Toddst1 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- I contest this accusation. All of the references provided are not bogus and can all be found in the corresponding biographies. Edits regarding WP:DOY and WP:YEARS articles I made are made in good faith. You can read about it on my user page. I particularly resent the accusation of sabotage. Why would I do that if I'm spending so much time on improving WP:DOY and WP:YEARS? Also, I find the term 'widespread' a bit dramatic; I count
about 4034 DOY-edits with references. In closing I find it deceiving that Toddst1 (talk · contribs) quoted my old 'non-comply' statement, which I deleted shortly after. I dropped the stick regarding the new guideline a long time ago. I leave it to this forum to decide whether I am a vandal or not. Mill 1 (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have spot-checked some of Toddst1’s examples, and found the same inaccuracies. This is insidious misconduct. AGK ■ 21:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with AGK; this is not acceptable. It looks like this user is taking references from the linked article without checking them. The error on Lothar II the Old, Count of Walbeck is in the article as well; the source clearly says that his wife died on 3 Dec 992. If Mill 1 doesn't agree to stop using references they haven't checked for entries on birth/death pages, a block will be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- It does appear to me that there are some inaccuracies compared to the cited source, but only in some of those linked (some sources are very rare and I couldn't view them right away to confirm or deny). The Lothar II article does clearly reference his wife (died 3 Dec 992) and his paternal grandmother of Mathilde also died on 3 Dec, it doesn't seem (to me) to say that he died on that day.
However, it does seem that is the actual day he died (from another source) [13]The Michael I of Kiev does seem to say that day is his feast day, which is the day the Church either believes he died or chooses to recognize as his death day, so that seems close enough to me. The Dirk II source, seems to confirm that he did die on the day that is claimed by Mill 1. The Egbert edit, the source says he died on the "8 or 9 December" rather than on the 9th of dec. That's fairly close to what was claimed (not far enough I would call vandalism). The Adalbert Atto edit, it does appear to me that he died on the date that Mill 1 claimed[14], butI could not find that at the source cited. Overall I would say both Mill 1 and the OP (Toddst1) seem to be making mistakes. I wouldn't go so far as to call it bad faith mistakes yet by either of them. Mostly, what I suspect is that Mill 1 is finding death days from WP articles and then adding those days to the DOY using the source in the WP article (and assuming that source is correct). Sometimes the original WP page isn't correctly citing the source. Other times the only source on the page doesn't include the death day (even though a death day is in the WP article), and he used that source anyway assuming it included the death day. I wouldn't call that vandalism, but he should be personally double checking the source before he uses it. I would suggest closing this with an admonishment to both of them to be more careful. -Obsidi (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Obsidi, The two sources you supposedly “confirmed“ the dates with are WP:USERG genealogical sites. Perhaps you should refrain from WP:RS discussions - those are pretty obvious. Toddst1 (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, didn't realize they were user generated. -Obsidi (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think I found a source for Lothar II's death date, but I only have access to it second hand. Maybe someone can get the original source. Supposedly this part of Die sächsischen Grafen 919-1024 is available online [15]. The odd part is that the year of death doesn't seem to match, but all other other details we have do. According to that source he died on 21 January 964. A possible second source I found is Studien und Vorarbeiten zum Historischen Atlas Niedersachsens, which appears to say the same date of death. Is this a different person? Many of the details seem to match, not sure why the years would be so far off. -Obsidi (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Obsidi, your diligence and effort in tracking down these sources is more than commendable. However, you're missing the point: We aren't discussing how we're going to augment/supplant Mill's bogus referencing. What we publish on Wikipedia must be 100% correct and verifiable. Otherwise we are at best fake news and/or a fake encyclopedia.
- We're talking about Mill 1's wholesale fakery of sources with either malevolent or incompetent basis. Toddst1 (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, of course the problem before this board is one of behavior not content. But I at least wished to know if there was actual harm to WP done by the actions. Were actually incorrect information added? Maybe others wouldn't care about that, but I at least wanted to find out. -Obsidi (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think I found a source for Lothar II's death date, but I only have access to it second hand. Maybe someone can get the original source. Supposedly this part of Die sächsischen Grafen 919-1024 is available online [15]. The odd part is that the year of death doesn't seem to match, but all other other details we have do. According to that source he died on 21 January 964. A possible second source I found is Studien und Vorarbeiten zum Historischen Atlas Niedersachsens, which appears to say the same date of death. Is this a different person? Many of the details seem to match, not sure why the years would be so far off. -Obsidi (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, didn't realize they were user generated. -Obsidi (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Obsidi, The two sources you supposedly “confirmed“ the dates with are WP:USERG genealogical sites. Perhaps you should refrain from WP:RS discussions - those are pretty obvious. Toddst1 (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing worse than faking references. If people who understand the topic confirm that is the case, the user must be indeffed with no appeal. People who think it is ok use fakery never change their mind. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with your first statement but the references are real and not at all fake; all of them are stated on the linked biography article on either the English or German wiki. Mill 1 (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Where you took these so-called references from is irrelevant - they're bogus. They do not support your statements. Only you are responsible for that. You have compromised the integrity of this project in the most insidious way - and now you've been exposed. Toddst1 (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with your first statement but the references are real and not at all fake; all of them are stated on the linked biography article on either the English or German wiki. Mill 1 (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
What I think needs to happen is for User:Toddst1 to get a fucking grip. Look at July 8, for example. In the face of this horribly, terribly important need to to add an external link to each and every entry -- and by "horribly, terribly important need", I mean "uselessly redundant busywork" -- there are 96 death entries, of which one (1) has the external link which is so direly important. Which means, basically, the people pushing this have done exactly fuck all to solve this terrible, terrible problem.
Meantime, Mill 1 adds this, using the source that is in the original article and has been since it was created in 2012. And Toddst1 reverts it with the hysterical edit summary more CONFIRMED WP:SNEAKY vandalism by Mill1.
So according to Toddst1, the problem here is Mill 1, not the original bad source -- which I notice that Toddst1 hasn't bothered to fix, either -- and this is "vandalism". Really? Does he actually know the meaning of the term "vandalism"? This is not just assuming bad faith, it's ABF on steroids. --Calton | Talk 09:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Would it be a problem if an editor were found to have used sources which investigation showed failed to verify a claim? What if there were numerous examples of that? Have you investigated the seven links above "These are just in the past few days"? I haven't examined the situation but I know that there is a gigantic problem if the statements about source misuse are accurate. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I looked at some of them and yes, there are errors, but at least one of them (the second one in the list) looks correct to me. I haven't got the books or access levels to check them all out. What I'm thinking is that maybe we could introduce notes for entries in earlier centuries, such as "(estimated)", "(feast day)", etc, so that people know how reliable or otherwise the dates are. My main concern about the introduction of the need for references into these articles is, and always has been, that it would work against the need to combat recentism and at least attempt a global approach, instead of the very US- and Western-biased list that currently exists. A plethora of references doesn't necessarily mean that an individual is more important or more historically significant than any other. We currently have an over-abundance of Australian sportsmen, European footballers and 21st century "celebrities" that would sink a ship. I've been banging my head against a brick wall for some years now in an attempt to improve these lists but few people seem to be willing to recognise that there's a problem. User:Toddst1's changes to the guidelines have been of some (rather unexpected) assistance in removing crap, but there's a need to recognise the difficulties inherent in the need to enforce the changes. Deb (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- If by the Michael of Kiev one, Google translate here does not seem to confirm the death date. It gives the feast day as 15 June, but that does not equate all the time to death date. Further in the article it says "The memory of St Michael is also honored as late as 30 September". This leaves aside whether the website (http://www.synaxarion.gr/gr/sid/3821/sxsaintinfo.aspx) is a reliable source - Google translate gives this as the about page, which seems to me to be a personal website using Orthodox Church materials only for the information. The third entry in the list is sourcing something to the Medieval Lands project, which is not the best source (to put it mildly, it's generally considered not reliable at WP:RSN) but the edit is putting the death date of Lothar II's WIFE on Lothar II himself. The source clearly gives Lothar's death date at 986 with no specific date listed. (Thankfully, someone has corrected these errors). The fourth one is sourced to this reference which gives the dates for Folcuin as "ca. 935-990". There is no date given for his death beyond a circa 990 date. The fifth one is again to medieval lands, but the title given is not supported in the source - the source clearly states "Dirk II Count of Holland" with no mention of "Count of Frisia" connected to Dirk II. I could go on but... why? These are just sources I can check online. Granted - this is an endemic problem across wikipedia - things that were originally sourced correctly get moved around or someone comes along and inserts further information into a sentence with a source without caring whether the given source actually supports the new information. This is why its not enough to rely on something in a list article being sourced in another wikipedia article linked to the list. Nor is it enough to just copy the information from the linked article to the list. The source must be checked before being used. If you copy over a source from another article without checking and understanding it (aka the use of the wife's death date instead of the husbands above), you're not helping ... you're actually hurting the encyclopedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Further problems - edit from 7 October adding a source but the source is a personal geneaology site. Another problematic source - this edit and this corresponding edit are sourced to this site in German. The FAQ for the site through Google translate gives this page which says "Scientific claim?: The required extensive study of sources is usually not possible for us. But the Ecumenical Holy Encyclopaedia arose not least from annoyance that the information given in the Holy Directory is often contradictory or even obviously false. So we strive for clarification and as reliable as possible information through careful research. An important role for reliability plays the committed cooperation of our readers: their corrections - often by proven experts - ensure that the Ecumenical Holy Encyclopaedia is becoming ever more reliable." Later, the FAQ says the copyright is with "the author, Joachim Schäfer in Stuttgart". Is he an expert on medieval German history? What makes this source a reliable one? We don't know... and thus the information is not helpful because it's probably not reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I wouldn't deny that the need to add refs for birth and death dates has possibly caused User:Mill 1 to act in desperation, perhaps seeking references in the wrong places. However, over time he has worked hard to ameliorate the effects of recentism, which is still a major problem on the DOTY pages as far as I'm concerned - and frankly, makes these pages a laughing stock even before we get into the business of what sources are and are not reliable. I must ask also, would you favour the removal of such dates from the articles concerned, or would you limit yourself to including a note that they may not be correct? Deb (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- My personal opinion is that adding information without sources or, worse, with wrong or unreliable sources, is much more of a concern than the effects of recentism. It’s not like I don’t know the problems of medieval sourcing, but sloppiness isn’t helping at all and is only making things worse. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I wouldn't deny that the need to add refs for birth and death dates has possibly caused User:Mill 1 to act in desperation, perhaps seeking references in the wrong places. However, over time he has worked hard to ameliorate the effects of recentism, which is still a major problem on the DOTY pages as far as I'm concerned - and frankly, makes these pages a laughing stock even before we get into the business of what sources are and are not reliable. I must ask also, would you favour the removal of such dates from the articles concerned, or would you limit yourself to including a note that they may not be correct? Deb (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I looked at some of them and yes, there are errors, but at least one of them (the second one in the list) looks correct to me. I haven't got the books or access levels to check them all out. What I'm thinking is that maybe we could introduce notes for entries in earlier centuries, such as "(estimated)", "(feast day)", etc, so that people know how reliable or otherwise the dates are. My main concern about the introduction of the need for references into these articles is, and always has been, that it would work against the need to combat recentism and at least attempt a global approach, instead of the very US- and Western-biased list that currently exists. A plethora of references doesn't necessarily mean that an individual is more important or more historically significant than any other. We currently have an over-abundance of Australian sportsmen, European footballers and 21st century "celebrities" that would sink a ship. I've been banging my head against a brick wall for some years now in an attempt to improve these lists but few people seem to be willing to recognise that there's a problem. User:Toddst1's changes to the guidelines have been of some (rather unexpected) assistance in removing crap, but there's a need to recognise the difficulties inherent in the need to enforce the changes. Deb (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay. How would it be if we all start working together to eliminate entries from the date articles where there is no reliable reference for birthdate? Deb (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Have you seen the WP:DOY articles? Look at today's article: October 8, I see 403 entries, and not a single one cited. Are we really going to nuke all of the content from these articles? -Obsidi (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- This seems to me to be the proper consequence of poor or absent attention to sourcing of content in all these 'showcases', arbitrary assemblages of unquestioned data are ubiquitous in article space and elsewhere, yet there is little disincentive for willing contributors to do the same (the motive being irrelevant). The more experienced contributors who tolerate, encourage, or participate in this sort of editing might try to stand back and ponder the net value of time and energy expended on this type of contribution versus encouraging people to read good sources and add the facts they find. Those who pile on to point out the obvious about unsourced content might prefer to expend their energy on forestalling this happening in future, rather than chastising those who have been actively encouraged by experienced users (not OP, they are always delightful[citation needed]). Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts on this. — cygnis insignis
- Comment - There may well be people reading and participating in this discussion who aren't aware that, for the first few years of Wikipedia, and certainly when most of the Date articles were created, there was no compulsion to include any references to third-party sources in any article. Hence you will find plenty of unreferenced content already in existence and correcting it all will take a lot longer than it took to create it in the first place.Deb (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- I suggest we put together a table of sources (sound/difficult to check/erroneous) that Mill 1 has added. We seem to be drawing different conclusions, which makes it difficult to analyse the problem. The devil's in the detail here. AGK ■ 18:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Here is my list (of the ones cited by Toddst1, I'm not including all of the additions by Mill 1):
Henry I difficult to check Michael I soundclose (if you accept feast day = death day)Lothar II erroneous (date was for wife not him) Saint Bertin difficult to check Dirk II sound Egbert close (Source said "8 or 9 December", but used on the DOY of 9th of Dec.) Adalbert Atto erroneous (could not find in source)
- All of them that I can see, had a recorded death date in the WP article (which was the date that Mill 1 used), and he pulled a source from the WP article (I guess assuming that source was the basis for the death date in the article as it was usually the only source in the WP article). He did not change the WP article itself to add the death date, I believe that was prior to his adding the person to the DOY list. -Obsidi (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- One more:
- All of them that I can see, had a recorded death date in the WP article (which was the date that Mill 1 used), and he pulled a source from the WP article (I guess assuming that source was the basis for the death date in the article as it was usually the only source in the WP article). He did not change the WP article itself to add the death date, I believe that was prior to his adding the person to the DOY list. -Obsidi (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- AGK ■ 18:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, as far as I can tell that death date is accurate [16], but I could not find it in source cited. (The only mention was that she was married to Liutpold and uses the name "Richwara", which is another one of the names she is called. I've seen Richardis, Richwar, Richarda, and Richwara all used as her name. Clicking on the link that is her name, you can find her entry, but I don't see any death date recorded in that source.) Do you want me to merge that into one table? -Obsidi (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- AGK ■ 18:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- No... if the source says "8 or 9 December" it is NOT okay to pick one and put it on that date. That's not being true to the source. Nor can we "accept feast day = death day" ... that's assuming something that's not in the source. In this case, when the source says that there was also commemorations on another day - that means there are possibly TWO death dates (and that assumes that the source is a reliable one (which I doubt, still haven't seen anything that says that's a reliable source by our standards)) or perhaps neither of those days is the death date because ... the source does not say "commemorated on his death date" so it's WP:OR to assume that "feast day=death date". Good gods, people... this is elemenatary editing - we don't pick one date from two presented in the source nor do we assume something that isn't in the source. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree if the source says "8 or 9 Dec." He shouldn't just pick one. But this is a question of intention, was he trying to just screw up WP by entering false information? That would be sneaky vandalism. I don't think that what he did rises to that, which is why I marked it as "close" and not "sound." The feast date is close, but not exactly the death day. The feast day would be the death day if it was known usually. Maybe I should mark that is close as well. Still, it is a question of was he sloppy or doing it intentionally, I think you have to come down on the sloppy side of things and not the intentional vandalism. -Obsidi (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Uninvolved admin review: This is getting wordy. As I understand it, it seems clear now that User:Mill 1 has been taking the source allegedly used to "confirm" a date from the article, and using it as a source on the DOY page, without independently confirming that it actually supports the date. Mill 1 is not the original creator of these bad references. That's bad practice and needs to stop, but attributing it to "sneaky vandalism" - an actual desire to damage the encyclopedia - is unjustifiable. Perhaps that characterization is the result of frustration, tho.
- @Toddst1:, is there any other behavior besides this that you're alleging? On reflection, do you really believe that this is being done intentionally?
- @Mill 1:, I assume you agree to not do this anymore? (That's phrased as a question to be polite, but for the sake of clarity, what I really mean is: Mill 1, you must stop doing this.)
- I agree to stop using sources directly from the bio's since it now clear they cannot be trusted. I also apologize for this practise (again, no malevolence intended) but am happy that via this discussion a deeper rooted problem regarding DOY has been identified.Mill 1 (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- So if that's the only problem, and if Mill 1 agrees to stop, I think the only remaining things to discuss here, and what we should re-focus on, are:
- How much of this is still in the DOY articles? How easy would it be to identify edits where this was done, and revert them? Should we just revert all of Mill 1's edits where they blindly copied a reference from an article?
- Assuming Mill 1 wasn't actively looking for incorrect references to copy over to DOY pages, the rate that their references were wrong roughly approximates the rate that errors in the main articles were wrong. That's pretty disturbing. We should aim to identify those cases and fix them in the articles too. Maybe as a subpage of WP:DOY? I don't know the best way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- You will find that the number entries is quite limited since I only recently refocused my efforts on DOY. In all I added 34 entries:
- September 30: 6 entries
- October 2: 3 entries
- October 6: 16 entries
- October 7: 9 entries
Just a general comment on dates & history, for general reference. Although people involved in this thread probably know more than me about this subject.
- Birth dates are always problematic, & the further back in time the more they need to have a reference. People tended to ignore this information, & even in contemporary third-world societies adults sometime don't know the year of their birth. We lack this information for many people, even famous ones; so having a date of birth for someone before, say AD 1000, is unusual & needs a citation. Sometimes we have to settle for the next best thing, such as date of baptism.
- Death dates are less problematic, because people tend to notice when other people die. The same problem exists: the further back in time a death is placed, the more problematic its reliability. For some deaths, there is an anchor that helps us to determine when the subject died (e.g., a battle, a natural disaster, or an astronomical event); for others, any date is based on a lot of surmise or inference, so experts may disagree on the date. (So WP:NPOV matters here.)
- Other events vary in difficulty, but the further back in time they are the less certain we are about the date. In some cases, this is because of literary convention: many Greek historians purposely omit mentioning the date of any battle or other significant event. In others it is due to lack of information. From my experience, for Europe we only have information about dates on a regular basis from the time of the Roman Empire forward; for Japan, from about AD 900 forward; for Ethiopia, much later, from about AD 1400 forward; for China, the period may be as early as 200 BC. (The Chinese kept very good records, & managed to avoid much of the destruction that plagued Europe & Ethiopia.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Series of unilateral move provocations without any discussion or consensus
An editor with has performed a series of problematic moves without any consensus, many of which are in explicitly against past consensuses. A motive in provocation is likely, given that the target is Gjon Kastrioti, the object of long and acrimonious talk page fights and continuous move warring with the objective of obscuring the "Albanianness" of the figure, whose son is the national hero of Albania, Skanderbeg. See this earlier move request (Talk:John_of_Castriot#Requested_move_28_June_2018) by a now blocked WP:NOTHERE sockpuppet who was obsessed with proving that Albanians come from Antalya in Turkey and have a "rather poor culture that consists mostly of borrowings from neighbors"
Very interesting is that when performing this move, the user added the supposed Serbian name of Gjon Kastrioti, Ivan Kastriot [[17]], which was an obsession of the past sockpuppet (of course, with some disagreement between the sockpuppet and his "allies" over whether the "correct" Serbian name was Ivan Kastriota, Ivan Kastriot, Jovan Kastriotic, Jovan Kastriota or other permutations of these...).
The current user moved the page to John of Castriot, claiming this is the name in use in the English language. This is patently false. See Google Scholar : zero results [[18]].
Admin help in reverting these disruptive moves is requested. Aside from Gjon Kastrioti, other affected pages include House of Kastrioti ([[19]]) and Gjon Kastrioti II ([[20]]). --Calthinus (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Another technical issue here is that the sockmaster, Irvi Hyka, was renamed after having been blocked for a good long time (see The199206 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)) on several wikis and with an extensive sockpuppet investigation history on this one. Courtesy ping Céréales Killer - is this normal? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Although I also see now that Irvi Hyka is a different case than OP reported. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: I don't think Irvi Hyka is involved here. The relevant master was Aleksander i Madh eshte Shkipetar. But it is not clear whether this new initiative is his work, the user Fongtzack seems to, aside from these moves where he did reproduce AMES' edits, have an independent editing history beforehand. Could be a case of off-wiki recruitment, a very clever sleeper, or something else entirely. The account was created on 20 September, which was indeed after the last AMES sock, but it has a history focusing on the Arab world with occasional Albanian edits. Nevertheless, this was clearly disruptive, and I need help undoing these moves because new redirects were created, preventing me from undoing it.--Calthinus (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar where I have started a new report. I'll comment further on that page with respect to possible sockpuppetry. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, I have renamed Irvi Hyka on August because his blocks were since a long time (I do not knew all the history), I though it was no issue with that. Now, If it is needed, I can rename back the user if there are currently problems. Let me know what is your choice. I am not a number (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar where I have started a new report. I'll comment further on that page with respect to possible sockpuppetry. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: I don't think Irvi Hyka is involved here. The relevant master was Aleksander i Madh eshte Shkipetar. But it is not clear whether this new initiative is his work, the user Fongtzack seems to, aside from these moves where he did reproduce AMES' edits, have an independent editing history beforehand. Could be a case of off-wiki recruitment, a very clever sleeper, or something else entirely. The account was created on 20 September, which was indeed after the last AMES sock, but it has a history focusing on the Arab world with occasional Albanian edits. Nevertheless, this was clearly disruptive, and I need help undoing these moves because new redirects were created, preventing me from undoing it.--Calthinus (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Although I also see now that Irvi Hyka is a different case than OP reported. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Hi Calthinus, as you requested, I have reverted the undiscussed page moves at Gjon Kastrioti, House of Kastrioti and Gjon Kastrioti II to their original locations. if you need further batch page moves or mass page move reverts, you can post the list here or at WP:RMT, cheers.
- I had come across one of the socks who was making undiscussed moves at WP:TURKEY articles and was asked to revert, on looking at his contributions, I had posted a note on WP Turkey #Multiple_undiscussed_page_moves, glad to see these sock accounts finally taken care of. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Hamburger button / Menu icon
- Hamburger button (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Menu icon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A few issues. First, there appears to have been a copy-paste merge. Second, both @Kpgjhpjm and Matt14451: should be trout-ed for re-listing the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menu icon where nobody was advocating deletion. Third, comparing the old version to the current version, Ericnoel's changes are likely not an improvement, perhaps this should just be reverted. Courtesy ping to @Xevus11: who has tried to clean this up but gotten no assistance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki: I am not defending myself , but I think the first relist with only the speedy keep vote by Enterprisey and comments by Ericnoel . But the second relist by Matt14451 with two keep votes seems a bit weird to me . For more information, I am on a break from relisting AFDs for a week . Waiting for your comments. Thanks . Kpgjhpjm 01:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Kpgjhpjm: The first relist was inappropriate because the nominator failed to advance any argument for deletion or redirection, so the discussion should have been closed as "speedy keep" instead per WP:SK#1. The nominator only suggested that the article be moved back to a different title, and there were no editors who thought the article should be deleted or redirected. Mz7 (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Histmerged. Alright, I've completed a history merge from Menu icon → Hamburger button. I think this should fix the copy-paste move that the AfD was about. Editors who want to rename the page should make a request via WP:RM. Mz7 (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I've given the article a quick and dirty but well imperfect makeover just now ... hopefully its an improvement.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
IP 180.94.140.233
I just blocked IP 180.94.140.233 for a week on graphic image vandalism. This is not their only recent block for the same behavior. Is there a more effective long-term way to handle this IP? The pattern is that they will keep doing it, no matter how many blocks are applied. — Maile (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Block them for a lot longer, and block the 180.94.128.0/18 range if necessary. The last block on that range was 21 days, with no significant collateral damage. I recommend at least 60 days. Also, add the image to the BADIMAGES file (I've already done so) and revdel the diffs so they can't just be reverted and so people don't get a NSFW surprise when checking history. I'm working my way through the revdels. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- They appear to have been trying to do this for a long time, and I see no harm in a rangeblock of six months to a year. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and blocked 180.94.128.0/18 for six months, as I see little collateral damage. Acroterion (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'd support an edit filter that prevents changes to images or addition of new images in TFA by IPs and non-autoconfirmed accounts - that would take care of much of this shock image trouble on TFAs. Acroterion (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. In this case, it wasn't TFA, just sticking porn into articles. I also support a filter preventing IPs from doing this. — Maile (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Actually it did involve TFA: Camille Saint-Saëns, and there's a discussion about TFA edit filters over at AN. Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- This is a globally locked account that is behind this and I've asked the stewards to evaluate this range on other projects. As far as collateral, there are two uninvolved accounts that will probably be affected but they can request IPBE.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- This is a globally locked account that is behind this and I've asked the stewards to evaluate this range on other projects. As far as collateral, there are two uninvolved accounts that will probably be affected but they can request IPBE.
- Actually it did involve TFA: Camille Saint-Saëns, and there's a discussion about TFA edit filters over at AN. Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. In this case, it wasn't TFA, just sticking porn into articles. I also support a filter preventing IPs from doing this. — Maile (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I wonder if this will get people to revisit the age-old debate that articles should be semi-protected while they are on the main page? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
List of conspiracy theories - Deep state section
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Slatersteven and I have been in continues disagreement, to me seemingly cause he does not want to read sources and cause he has inherent bias. We took it to Talk section of page, then to personal talk pages I accused him of incompetency (which he displays in my mind without a question and he tried to spin it as PA and even threatened me on my talk page). I would like Administrators and preferably persons without emotional investment in politics to look it up. I feel like entire section defining term is a blatant cop-out with left wing bias and entire section is pretty much attack on Donald Trump (person I dont really care about) instead on focusing on issues and facts and even reading sources with understanding. I would like to point out I mentioned turkish 2016 coup and Steven started with whatabouthery and mentioning Greek coup which is not issue at hand and does not apply to our subject (deep state). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 10:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- In two days from being a new user to filing an ANI-case... That escalated pretty damn fast. There's major WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL issues here, but not on Slatersteven part. The appropriate reaction to someone disagreeing with you is not calling them incompetent (more than once). Since you are new here, I recommend a firm WP:TROUTing. If you weren't, I'd recommend a WP:BOOMERANG Kleuske (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Besides... You are obliged to notify Slatersteven on his talk-page. See the big red banner at the top of this page. Kleuske (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- By continuously he means since he first stated editing about 24 hours ago, on the only article he has edited.
- Here is his first edit in the article talk page [[22]], which he claims is proof there is a deep state. Here is his second (and last post to that thread [[23]]. I asked him not to make PA's here [[24]], and his response to it. It is clear the user is wp:nothere. Now I know about do not bite newbies, but I have tried to tell them not to make PA's to read our polices on OR and synthesis. They have not listensed and have instead fallen back on attacking me.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well I am pretty passionate about topic and I know what I am talking about. Also how can he ask me numerous times to quote him source, thought it is given he have all read the sources with understanding already.. I will do my post to oblige by wikipedia rules, but lets focus on topic here - editor does not read sources with understanding and tries to avoid facts. Also Steven, I did talk about other topics, notably modern architecture and Art Deco, Art Nouveau. This is yet another ad hominem attack to sidestep issue at hand.MrStefanWolf (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- OK, lets make this easy. Provide one source here that says the deep state exists in all the instances we list in the article. Sorry I should have said, on the only article we have both edited. But as far as I can tell you have only edited on two articles, the conspiracy article and one about visas.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- You have opinions, but it's not clear that you "know what you're talking about", at least in the context of writing a Wikipedia article. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- No, Steven you cant use and hijacked term well know and used beforehand. Term did not originate in USA, it did not originate in contemporary time and if some theorist are trying to hijack term that needs to put to an end, not to play along with them. Deep State is not Power elite that is literally made up. It always referred to entrenched bureaucrats usually in military and intelligence community as provided in sources. If you want to argue unique usage of term by Donald Trump thats on you, but term Deep State needs to be left alone along with its definition that I repeat is provided in sources and consensus is clear. MrStefanWolf (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- As a point of clarification, it's not accurate that MrStefanWolf has only edited one article. First, they didn't edit any article, only talk pages. Second and more importantly, their first edit outside of creating their user page was this [25] to Talk:H-1B visa. Later [26] to the same page. It's true most of their edits were concerning that list until albeit ignoring stuff postdating this ANI, only two edits to the article talk page and a whole host of edits concerning the article on their talk page and SlaterSteven's talk page and this ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have already accepted this is not the case (well the part about this being the only article they have edited).Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- @MrStefanWolf: I'll cut you some slack since you're new but this isn't the purpose of ANI. If you have a content dispute which you can't resolve, you should use some form of WP:Dispute resolution, none of which should need ANI. Note that before you do so, you really need to take onboard what others have told you and make sure you aren't simply wrong, otherwise you may simply end up wasting everyone's time. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Kaimaidment18
This specific user has been problematic for months, continually making disruptive that are almost always reverted and constantly making unsourced edits. They have been warned multiple on their talk page for making disruptive and unsourced edits, but have never once replied on their talk page. They also never use edit summaries, which is disruptive. Look at the edit history for List of American Horror Story episodes, where they make the same repeated edits, but are reverted every time, but keep on doing it. Posting warnings on their talk page doesn't do anything, as they continue with the same disruptive behavior. I warned them on adding unsourced content earlier this month, and they just recently made three consecutive edits of adding unsourced content (TV ratings without a reliable source): [27][28][29]. I feel a temporary block is needed here or this type of unhelpful behavior will just continue. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked until they respond on their talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Problematic POV pushing. Page blanking against WP:Consensus at Blue Army (Poland). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Article has been fully protected. This'll give the users involved an opportunity to discuss everything fully on the article's talk page and work things out. I see back-and-fourth reverting that goes back at least a few days, so this appears to be the right and fair way to stop the disruption at this time. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: - there is a longer term pattern of abuse here. E-960 has been attempting, against consensus, to excise coverage (in the lede and body) of anti-Semitic attacks by the Blue Army (which reliable academic sources treat at depth, often as the primary subject of their coverage of the Blue Army (or Haller's Army)) for years - e.g. 17:51, 24 November 2015 (shifting blame to Ukrainians along the way), 06:31, 6 March 2017, 15:07, 25 May 2017 (an edit summary full of OR - referencing a PRIMARY contemporary source - which was composed in 1919 - 2 years prior to the peace of Riga in 1921), 15:30, 26 May 2017, 21:37, 20 October 2017, 08:26, 22 September 2018, .... 06:09, 8 October 2018, 17:17, 9 October 2018. All this - against talk page consensus and RfCs - e.g. Talk:Blue Army (Poland)/Archive 6#RFC: use of a reference source that was taken down by the encyclopedia from May 2017 which discussed the language used in the lede. They have engaged of canvassing of editors involved in WP:EEML - 13:25, 8 October 2018, 13:21, 8 October 2018 (this after - 07:56, 8 October 2018 a highly non-neutral stmt to NPOV/n apparently attracted the wrong sort of editorial attention). An editor that thinks that
200-300 casualties in 3 years of fighting and 200,000 soldiers, that's insignificant, and only confirms my concerns that some editors just want to stack this article with biased one sided statements
(again - wrongly referring to Morgenthau's mid-1919 number (the Morgenthau commission did not have a crystal ball) which estimated 200-300 killed through 1919 (casualties - including wounded and abused - would be much larger of course). They have also misrepresented sources - 06:01, 9 October 2018 (not only is Lvov in the Morgenthau report, using David Engel (1987) to rebut a 2005 book is a tad odd - and in this case completely unsupported by Engel (who actually, in his footnote addressing Morgenthau , writesthe opposite). An editor acting against consensus (on the same issue) for years, and who considers widespread antisemitic attack by an organization to be "insignificant" (despite widespread coverage - to the point that some sources primarily cover the Blue Army in the context of antisemitism) - should not be editing the topic area. Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)- I would like to make a critical statement, thought not in an effort to point fingers at anyone and not in bad faith, however a frank dialogue needs to take place. There is a persistent bias on topics related to Polish history, how can any one that is truly for Wikipedia neutraliry say that an article is balanced when it contains 3,100 words 900 (30%) are devoted to just one issue and this also happens to be a contriversial topic. When a few days ago I opened a disscussion on Neutral Point of View Noticeboard to see if the disputed text can be condenced, cynically user Icewhiz responded by adding two more paragraphs to disputed section (also pls see user Icewhiz history, as he has been accused of POV pushing on topics related to Polish-Jewish history in the past). Also, the disputed text is almost all exclusivley the work of one editor user Faustian, who over the years blocked any attempt to make the section more neutral or balanced. Now, Wikipedia guidlines clearly state that undue weight can include depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of text and article structue. So, how can anyone argue that one issue taking up 30% of the article is ok. In no other Wikipedia article would that be allowed. Instead you have artificial "consensus" where the same few editors jump in to support each other, and establish "consensus which clearly violates Wikipedia guidelines. I as that sevral admins to actually look at the Blue Army article and say that the text meets Wikipedias neutrality standards, when the article focuses on just one ethnic group which sustained the least casulties in the war as a result of the army's actions (around 500), while other ethnic groups count their casulties in the THOUSANDS and there is just one passing statement devoted to them. --E-960 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It would seem neutral, reliable, secondary academic sources treat the Blue Army's antisemitic atrocities against civilians (abuse, cutting of beards, pillaging and robbing, maiming, and killing) at great length in comparison to their performance on the field of battle. We follow sources - not editorial opinion that such atrocities are "insignificant"(diff - 10:33, 8 October 2018). Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- I would like to make a critical statement, thought not in an effort to point fingers at anyone and not in bad faith, however a frank dialogue needs to take place. There is a persistent bias on topics related to Polish history, how can any one that is truly for Wikipedia neutraliry say that an article is balanced when it contains 3,100 words 900 (30%) are devoted to just one issue and this also happens to be a contriversial topic. When a few days ago I opened a disscussion on Neutral Point of View Noticeboard to see if the disputed text can be condenced, cynically user Icewhiz responded by adding two more paragraphs to disputed section (also pls see user Icewhiz history, as he has been accused of POV pushing on topics related to Polish-Jewish history in the past). Also, the disputed text is almost all exclusivley the work of one editor user Faustian, who over the years blocked any attempt to make the section more neutral or balanced. Now, Wikipedia guidlines clearly state that undue weight can include depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of text and article structue. So, how can anyone argue that one issue taking up 30% of the article is ok. In no other Wikipedia article would that be allowed. Instead you have artificial "consensus" where the same few editors jump in to support each other, and establish "consensus which clearly violates Wikipedia guidelines. I as that sevral admins to actually look at the Blue Army article and say that the text meets Wikipedias neutrality standards, when the article focuses on just one ethnic group which sustained the least casulties in the war as a result of the army's actions (around 500), while other ethnic groups count their casulties in the THOUSANDS and there is just one passing statement devoted to them. --E-960 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for making that statement user Icewhiz because it unmasks your POV pushing, since there are pleanty of sources which say the Blue Army turned the tide of the war and that is the center of their material. However, the sources you champion just focus the the abuse, besides this is not the first article you are trying to impose your POV to the objectin of other editors, no sure what the point of that link was since we are talking about UNDUEWEIGHT.--E-960 (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Icewhiz, it's pretty clear that if anyone is trying to use Wikipedia to "RIGHTGREATWRONGS", it's not E-960 but you. E-960 is making a straight forward policy based argument about DUE WEIGHT. You can disagree with that (the real question is whether this article should spend 1/3 of its space on this issue even though the subject is notable for other reasons, or whether that info belongs in a different article), but there's no need to attack them or insult them or falsely misrepresent their actions, like you're doing by accusing them of RGW (I don't see ANYTHING in their comment which would suggest that). On the other hand, pretty much everyone familiar with your editing history has a pretty good sense of your WP:ADVOCACY and pattern of POV pushing in this and other topic areas. Volunteer Marek 16:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think that if E-960 really was concerned about undue weight, he would have taken all that time he spent trying to get this information about atrocities against Jews removed, and instead applied it towards building up other aspects of the history of the Blue Army. Instead he has, for years, just tried to get this information removed. So his actual motive is to remove information he doesn't like, and not make the article weighted as he sees fit. The percentage of the article devoted to these atrocities would have been much smaller had E-960 spent a couple hours in the library doing research and adding other information to the article, rather than spending hours trying to remove information. So let's not pretend that he cares about undue weight. He just wants to remove referenced information that he doesn't like and engages in edit warring and blanking (see here: [30]) while doing so.Faustian (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Faustian, what you are doing is Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, literally no changes have been made to the disputed section in YEARS, because you sit on top of that article and revert all attempts to change the text or even seek a compromise solution (that's not even an exaggeration, the text has been frozen for YEARS due to your stonewalling). --E-960 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- By "no changed" in the disputed section you mean, your repeated attempts to remove information without consensus. If you are concerned about undue weight, why not build other sections rather than remove reliably sourced info from this one? I doubt you really care about undue weight. You just want information that you don't like to be removed.Faustian (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- This article does indeed have severe undue weight issues. Interestingly I have also checked the sources used and for example Prusin-he doesn't say anything about rapes and burning books by Blue Army soldiers and explanations of the situation have been cut out by the editors adding the information about killings.I compared this article with the article about West Ukrainian People's Republic that exised in the same time and area which engaged in mass opression of Polish population, up to setting up internment camps for Polish population. It is quite interesting to compare the two articles.While here we have almost half of the page devoted to these events, the mass persecution of Poles in WUPR is passed over and blamed on "Polish sabotage". I can't help but notice the radically different treatement the two articles about similiar events in the same time and area and conflict receive.So to summarize-I do believe there is undue weight here and comparing this to other articles on the conflict with similar events there seems to be bias involved.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- And what matters is not what our articles say, but what RS say. So if there is an imbalance maybe this is due to an imbalance in reliable sources saying something. Again if there is information left out of an article that is relevant and can be sourced add it, do not remove sources material from another article in the name of balance.Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Faustian, what you are doing is Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, literally no changes have been made to the disputed section in YEARS, because you sit on top of that article and revert all attempts to change the text or even seek a compromise solution (that's not even an exaggeration, the text has been frozen for YEARS due to your stonewalling). --E-960 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: - there is a longer term pattern of abuse here. E-960 has been attempting, against consensus, to excise coverage (in the lede and body) of anti-Semitic attacks by the Blue Army (which reliable academic sources treat at depth, often as the primary subject of their coverage of the Blue Army (or Haller's Army)) for years - e.g. 17:51, 24 November 2015 (shifting blame to Ukrainians along the way), 06:31, 6 March 2017, 15:07, 25 May 2017 (an edit summary full of OR - referencing a PRIMARY contemporary source - which was composed in 1919 - 2 years prior to the peace of Riga in 1921), 15:30, 26 May 2017, 21:37, 20 October 2017, 08:26, 22 September 2018, .... 06:09, 8 October 2018, 17:17, 9 October 2018. All this - against talk page consensus and RfCs - e.g. Talk:Blue Army (Poland)/Archive 6#RFC: use of a reference source that was taken down by the encyclopedia from May 2017 which discussed the language used in the lede. They have engaged of canvassing of editors involved in WP:EEML - 13:25, 8 October 2018, 13:21, 8 October 2018 (this after - 07:56, 8 October 2018 a highly non-neutral stmt to NPOV/n apparently attracted the wrong sort of editorial attention). An editor that thinks that
- We are back to the theme of trouble in articles on the subject of Polish-Jewish relations. As far as I’m aware there are three editors banned from the area at the moment, and E-960 was editing with them, on the same articles. Whether or not one agrees with this editor on article content, what we're required to do here at ANI is consider conduct. This particular case comes within a context, which I'll start to show some of here.
- For the record, at WP:AE the administrator NeilN has already advised E-960 “to be more careful when reverting” in the conclusion to a WP:AE revert-warring case: [31]
- This came after another WP:AE revert-war case where administrator NeilN asked E-960 to voluntarily abstain from the page in question for 72 hours, in light of E-960’s assurance that they will be more careful in future: [32]
- E-960 has recently been asked by MyMoloboaccount to “chill out”. [33] .
- K.e.coffman has messaged E-960 to say: Hi, I am leaving a quick note to let you know that I did not find these Talk page comments to be helpful: [34]. Talk pages are for discussion of content, not contributors. I would appreciate it if you did not unnecessarily personalised disputes. This could potentially drive off other editors if they find the atmosphere too unpleasant. Thank you. [35]
- I myself disengaged from editing and discussion with E-960 around 15 months ago, here: [36]
- Since then I have suspended work on an article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBEE), named Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, in response to an edit by E-960 there. To my mind in breach of the spirit of these sanctions, E-960 reverted [37] my addition of sourced content [38] which I had discussed my rationale for on the Talk page first, and part of which François Robere had endorsed with a public thanks, meaning E-960 was pointedly disregarding consensus. As you’ll see from the Talk page, the aim of my addition had been to establish article stability by at least having a definition of controversial terms that in my view was causing editors to argue at cross -purposes; E-960’s edit summary shows their own definition of the term Polish “collaboration” rules out Polish “anti-semitism”, as if E-960’s knows the universal truth.
- At times E-960's Talk page discussion has been misleading. For example, at the same article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies, their "I agree with Chumchum7... Unfortunately, user François Robere wants to..." is not an agreement at all but a case of putting words into someone else's mouth, because I had made a general statement about how we might be able to build consensus and stability, and I had not singled out the editor E-960 happened to disagree with: [39]
- The common theme with all these articles is that E-960 has an axe to grind about Poland’s reputation and Polish-Jewish relations in particular, but they do this with the appearance of trying to intimidate, win and control, and often with projections of bad faith and a personally disrespectful tone, which is at odds with the ethos of our community. While I happen to agree that the allegation of Polish antisemitism is sometimes exaggerated and has led to stereotyping and is an aspect of prejudice against Poles, it is equally true that Polish antisemitism is sometimes downplayed, denied, justified or whitewashed. The solution in Wikipedia is to try to find a consensus solution which represents the sources fairly, because it is a fight which will never be won: those who insist on fighting about it will be stopped.
- This has gone on too long. It’s stealing our time and warnings are not being heeded by the user in question; it may even be that our tolerance is feeding their conduct. This ANI needs to be seen in the wider context. Similar sanctions as those applied to User:Icewhiz, etc, may be worth considering. As far as I recall, veteran administrators on issues such as this are Sandstein and User:EdJohnston, who might be available for consultation as well as NeilN .Best luck, -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Hidden messages
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP user, 173.235.84.234, was in a dispute over format of production codes at M*A*S*H (season 10). The IP user was determined to be correct and now insists on adding several hidden messages to the main page warning others not to change the material. The dispute is over and the content is not hotly contested, so this is unnecessary. I have asked them to simply make their edits and not add 4000 characters worth of hidden messages for an issue that no longer exists. Can someone help explain to them why this is not appropriate? Thanks. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Basilosauridae - Have you reached out to the IP user directly to express your concerns? I don't see any messages on the IP's user talk page showing that an attempt was made to ask the user to stop doing this and explain why such changes aren't necessary. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I first reverted their edits with a note asking them to just make the edit and that the added hidden messages were over the top. After that, they reached out on my talk page expressing frustration over the situation. Since the talk page discussion, I haven't heard a response from them and instead they re-did their edit today without further discussion. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Basilosauridae - Ah okay, so it looks like you two last communicated back at the end of September - no worries. I'll be happy to reach out to the user directly and talk to them for you. Just make sure that you don't repeatedly revert the article and fall into the "edit warring pit". I'll try explaining things to them and then we'll see how things go. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Basilosauridae - Done. The message I left is here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Basilosauridae - Ah okay, so it looks like you two last communicated back at the end of September - no worries. I'll be happy to reach out to the user directly and talk to them for you. Just make sure that you don't repeatedly revert the article and fall into the "edit warring pit". I'll try explaining things to them and then we'll see how things go. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I first reverted their edits with a note asking them to just make the edit and that the added hidden messages were over the top. After that, they reached out on my talk page expressing frustration over the situation. Since the talk page discussion, I haven't heard a response from them and instead they re-did their edit today without further discussion. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
SizzleMan
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SizzleMan (talk), for resumed genre warring and unverified changes in late September through today, following several warnings in past months before a period of inactivity beginning in early September after the final warning. See contributions; every single edit after the inactivity targeted genres in the infobox or added unsourced material to the articles. Some diffs:
In a few instances, they removed citations that verified existing genres in the infobox ([40], [41]). Dan56 (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Barely half an hour passes since being reported here and SizzleMan continues their genre warring here. here and here to name a few. Robvanvee 05:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm blocking for 48 hours, as this user has been completely unresponsive to repeated warnings. That said, Robvanvee, while I understand your frustration go easy on rollback; the edits aren't vandalism, so it's best to do a standard revert with an explanation (such as this). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
70.178.127.37
An anon user has started off removing talk page posts against talk page rules, sourced content, and adding incorrect information to a page. After reverted, I was contacted by the anon, who is clearly trying to edit war and OWN the pages. I reverted again with edit summaries only to be reverted again and this post added to my talk page asking me to "recuse myself" (OK?). Anyway, the anon has went into my edit history and began editing pages I have edited before with snarky edit summaries trying to get a rise out of me, as well as continuing to add incorrect information to pages. So, I bring this to you all.
Personally, I think a complete revert of all edits, a 3RR warning, and a strongly written warning regarding this type of behavior from an admin would be a good start. But those are just my suggestions, you can tell me to, as my Brit friends say, "bugger off" and do whatever you like. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:14 on October 9, 2018 (UTC)
- I just rolled back an edit where the IP blanked an entire talk page here, as well as some other edits. The user is stating in their edit summaries with their reverts on WGLI that the source provided doesn't support that the content is describing. Apart from the disruptive edits, there appears to be edits over content that should be discussed. Other than your response here, have you tried to communicate and kindly explain why he may be incorrect with his edits at WGLI? Have you attempted to collaborate with the user and work with them to resolve things? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- NeutralHomer seems to regard himself as an authority on these topics. Yet he posts incorrect information. He insists on misrepresenting the coverage of a radio station that is not supported by his own maps and using incorrect information in other articles. When made aware of his undoing of my proper edits, I read some of his other articles and became aware that he is a far from neutral and rather neurotic person who wants to change correct information posted by those who may know more about the subject in question than he does. He needs to prove his assertions of signal coverage and slogans/format names, or accept the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.127.37 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Regarding the WPJX page, when I added multiple sources to all reliable sources per RS, the anon came through and manually reverted the changes against the sources. Apparently he thinks Arbitron is the end all, be all. For the record, Arbitron (now owned by Nielsen) shows the station still carrying a Spanish Contemporary format (which is previously did).
- While I was writing this, the anon reverted the WPJX page, YET AGAIN, against sources, and blanked his talk page. Clearly he is not interested in conversation and more interested in OWNing an article and slinging insults. A block is needed for the anon, I will not make any further edits to the anon's edits, regardless of how incorrect they are. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:36 on October 9, 2018 (UTC)
- Neutralhomer - Don't worry about his/her user talk page. Users are allowed to blank their own talk page and remove comments and discussions from them if they wish. You notified them properly of this discussion; their removal acknowledges that they saw it. No need to worry about their talk page beyond that. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- What the station programmers call the format isn't relevant. The station doesn't program a "metal" format. The industry nomenclature is proper and used to categorize stations on Wikipedia. No commercial radio station in North America programs a purely "heavy metal" format. Heavy Metal is a musical genre. Active Rock is a radio format that includes heavy metal and other forms of hard music - his own sources admit the station has a Punk show, for example. You are not on Wikipedia to serve as PR mouthpiece for radio programmers. If you are so biased, recuse yourself from the topic. Numerous people have called you out on errors that you keep reverting to in radio articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.127.37 (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've reverted on WPJX. They have an 'about us' page where it is literally spelled out 'Rebel Radio has been cranking out hard rock and heavy metal over the air waves since July 10, 1994'. They likely give little to no care about Nielsen and their ratings at all and the station is run as an enthusiast project rather than a pure commercial effort (and I'm 99% certain they don't subscribe to Nielsen ratings, so basically they would likely reject whatever format box Nielsen puts them in anyways and probably laugh at the 'industry'; honestly they'd probably laugh at us trying to also categorize them within an article). We go with that. At the very least, a radio station is allowed to say what their format is. Nate • (chatter) 23:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- 70.178.127.37, if you read what the Active Rock format is, you would know you are wrong. In it's most watered down form, it's new commercial-based rock, ie: Halestorm, Breaking Benjamin, Metallica, Bad Wolves, Five Finger Death Punch, Shinedown, etc. What WPJX plays is Broken Hope, EyeHateGod, Jinjer, Sunflo’er, Kyuss, etc. Clearly neither are the same. There is no crossover between Active Rock and Heavy Metal. WPJX and Rebel Radio plays a Heavy Metal format, not an Active Rock one found on stations like WNOR, KRZN, WIIL, and other stations nationwide. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:03 on October 10, 2018 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: I never really got to discuss anything with the anon (especially WGLI) and when the user began blanking his talk page, which I do know is his/her choice, I saw no reason for it until the user calmed down. I would be interested in talking with the user, but until they calm down and are more open to discussion with me, I see no reason. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:06 on October 10, 2018 (UTC)
- Neutralhomer, have you actually read WP:OR? 86.147.197.124 (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- It looks like you two have at least opened a dialogue of communication to one another here, which is a great first step. I encourage you both to relax, agree that you plan to discuss things with one another and try and work things out, and be completely civil to each other when you do so... agree to consider this as a "we started on the wrong foot" moment, "sorry" - and go from there. Work issues out one-at-a-time; don't go off about a bunch of things in one response. A big part of the dispute is whether or not the map in the source actually represents that radio frequency coverage exists in certain areas. Start with this disagreement and just this one, go to Talk:WPJX, start over and with a new discussion - wipe the slate clean and shake hands, and explain your thoughts thoroughly, calmly, and respectfully. One one issue is worked out, move on to another. I'm here should either of you have questions or concerns for me. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Neutralhomer, have you actually read WP:OR? 86.147.197.124 (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've reverted on WPJX. They have an 'about us' page where it is literally spelled out 'Rebel Radio has been cranking out hard rock and heavy metal over the air waves since July 10, 1994'. They likely give little to no care about Nielsen and their ratings at all and the station is run as an enthusiast project rather than a pure commercial effort (and I'm 99% certain they don't subscribe to Nielsen ratings, so basically they would likely reject whatever format box Nielsen puts them in anyways and probably laugh at the 'industry'; honestly they'd probably laugh at us trying to also categorize them within an article). We go with that. At the very least, a radio station is allowed to say what their format is. Nate • (chatter) 23:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- What the station programmers call the format isn't relevant. The station doesn't program a "metal" format. The industry nomenclature is proper and used to categorize stations on Wikipedia. No commercial radio station in North America programs a purely "heavy metal" format. Heavy Metal is a musical genre. Active Rock is a radio format that includes heavy metal and other forms of hard music - his own sources admit the station has a Punk show, for example. You are not on Wikipedia to serve as PR mouthpiece for radio programmers. If you are so biased, recuse yourself from the topic. Numerous people have called you out on errors that you keep reverting to in radio articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.127.37 (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- Neutralhomer - Don't worry about his/her user talk page. Users are allowed to blank their own talk page and remove comments and discussions from them if they wish. You notified them properly of this discussion; their removal acknowledges that they saw it. No need to worry about their talk page beyond that. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
- While I was writing this, the anon reverted the WPJX page, YET AGAIN, against sources, and blanked his talk page. Clearly he is not interested in conversation and more interested in OWNing an article and slinging insults. A block is needed for the anon, I will not make any further edits to the anon's edits, regardless of how incorrect they are. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:36 on October 9, 2018 (UTC)
@Oshwah: I considered talking with the anon, but after he/she continued to blank his/her comments from my talk page, along with my entire talk page, and this nonsense on the WELY page including the "proper tense" of the station's branding over the one used. WELY uses the branding "End of the Radio Radio", while the anon insists it's "Radio at the End of the Road" even though the station's website and social media contradict this. Perhaps he/she is going an extreme form of proper English? Whatever the reasoning, it showed me that he/she was not interested in discussing anything and was still being disruptive. If the anon is willing to calm down what is clearly disruptive behavior, I will be more than happy to discuss the WPJX article, the WELY article, the WGLI article, whatever. But with his/her behavior as it is, it's not worth my time.
That said, I do believe that something needs to be done, as the anon's behavior has verged into the disruptive as evidenced by his/her edits to my talk page (after warnings) and to the WELY page. A stern warning might help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:40 on October 11, 2018 (UTC)
IP with a history of adding unsourced content
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 99.254.82.72 (talk · contribs)
A quick reading of a few dozen edits turns up nothing in the way of sources, but lots of unsourced plot descriptions, actors' TV and movie credits, and most recently, original research about athletes. Long term pattern, continuing despite numerous warnings. Seen this many times before, and IPs operating in this way can blemish hundreds of articles without action being taken, but a block and mass reversions would seem justified. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked 48 hours with the understanding that they can be unblocked at any time if they agree to start citing their sources.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Lachlb and time zone articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This new editor arrived on the scene today, and immediately made a number of incorrect changes to several time zone related articles, and only such articles. Nothing else. No Edit summaries. Nothing in Talk pages. The first ones I noticed involved Australian time zones (I'm an Aussie, so I noticed), so I reverted, and eventually asked him to stop, on hs Talk page. This achieved nothing. No response. The edits continued. I eventually reverted quite a few, but was unsure about a few others, so haven't touched them. Maybe someone with more knowledge of the area can do so. These can be seen on his User contributions page.
His appearance lasted a little over an hour. He has done nothing since. HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- That appears to be User:Lachlb, not User:Lachb as raised. HiLo48, I'm pretty sure of that (so I've updated the section heading) but can you confirm that it's now correct? Andrewa (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I see that some of their contributions at least are still unreverted as I write. [42] If it's a vandalism-only account of course it's a simple and immediate indef.
That particular contribution does perhaps contain some valid content... adding Malé to the time zone UTC+5 is correct. [43] Except they've added it as Male which is not. Andrewa (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- I've mass reverted all edits whilst we discuss further. On the face of it all the edits seems poor. GiantSnowman 09:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- He's at it again. See List of UTC time offsets. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked for 72 hours to give them an opportunity to respond on their talk page to the concerns raised about their editing. Should a satisfactory response be provided, any admin please feel free to unblock without checking with me. Should one not be provided and they resume the crappy editing, I would imagine an indefinite block will be imposed. Fish+Karate 09:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
WP: Battleground Accusation by IP
Hi, An IP has responded to an RfC in a aggressive manner towards another user and accused them of creating a battleground. They have also commented on another opinion dismissing it. Could someone please intervene as it's harming the discussion?
Diff:[44] [45] [46] [47] [48]
Thanks,
RhinosF1 (talk) 05:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) The accusation of battleground is definitely unfounded, but these diffs (or the discussion for that matter) would be easier to read if they weren't mobile diffs since mobile diffs only show the difference between edits and not the actual discussion itself.—Mythdon 06:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- It's not harming the discussion. The discussion has barely started and this ANI is doing its best to stifle it.
- "accused them of creating a battleground"
- Given the editor's contributions to a previous discussion on the subject, his repeated failure to provide sources that support his claims, his enthusiasm to change the article based a new source that similarly fails to support his claims and his general attitude to the subject, what am I supposed to think? For example, in this edit dated 13 September, he makes it quite clear that in future he will declare a discussion closed at a time of his choosing regardless of the state of the discussion, and by extension use that declaration to enforce whichever changes he chooses. WP:BATTLEGROUND exists for a reason: "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." I think the editor in question is holding a grudge—he wanted to make a change, but the community disagreed with him and formed a consensus, and now that someone else has raised the issue he has latched onto it in the hopes of forming a new consensus because it's a point of pride.
- "They have also commented on another opinion dismissing it."
- That's a misrepresentation. The issue in question has been discussed extensively and a consensus formed. All I did was outline what that consensus was and why it was formed and that's "dismissing an opinion"? How are we supposed to have a meaningful discussion if editors involved in previous, relevant and related discussions cannot give details of those discussions? Especially considering that RhinosF1 supports the proposed change and is thus opposed to the existing consensus. If RhinosF1 had his way, the previous discussion would go unaddressed in the current discussion despite its relevance, and hence this ANI is stifling the discussion. 1.144.107.224 (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- It's not harming the discussion. The discussion has barely started and this ANI is doing its best to stifle it.
- (edit conflict) I've looked over your collection of diffs and reviewed some of the talk page discussion. Honestly, I don't see that the IP editor has done anything actionable. The worst they could conceivably be accused of is being a little blunt in getting their point across, as well as a singular assumption of bad faith, which clearly came from a place of frustration after spending over a month trying to explain that a memorandum of understanding between two businesses does not mean that a contract has been signed. (I say "over a month" because although there have been multiple IP addresses participating in that discussion since August, they all appear to be the same editor.) None of the sources being suggested on the article's talk page adequately verify the claim that Honda and Red Bull have officially agreed to a partnership, so I ultimately side with the IP on this one and can empathize with their exasperation. However, that is a content dispute and falls outside the scope of ANI, which deals pretty exclusively with behavioral issues. My assessment of the situation as a non-administrator is that the IP has done nothing wrong, and certainly nothing worthy of a sanction. Kurtis (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- No worries. You probably just have a dynamic IP address. They're pretty much the norm these days. Kurtis (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- @1.144.107.224: They've most likely rejected the idea by this point, but the IP user could register for an account to avoid the dynamic IP problem. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 11:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- No worries. You probably just have a dynamic IP address. They're pretty much the norm these days. Kurtis (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) This seems to be more of a dispute over sourcing, so I have to agree with Kurtis (after reading the discussions) that this isn't an issue for ANI. Even assumptions of bad faith (the battleground comment) aren't actionable unless they become a regularity. So this thread should probably be closed since neither side has provided substantial evidence of behavioral issues that would require the intervention of an administrator. But if issues start to escalate, then it should be brought back here.—Mythdon 08:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) As "another user", I've no interest in an ANI discussion over this. OZOO (t) (c) 09:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Francis Schonken STILL edit-warring on issue he was just blocked six weeks for
- Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Returning from his six-week block for continuing to ram through his unanimously opposed merge (see ANI thread 20 August 2018, and ANI thread 13 August 2018), Francis has recreated the unanimously opposed merge: [49], [50].
Since Francis Schonken has by now over the span of several years proved himself a deliberately disruptive editor (particularly in his vicious long-term harassment of Mathsci, to which this current disruptive edit-warring is unrelated), I think it is time to talk about an indef block.
Pinging: Nikkimaria, Kudpung, Alex Shih, Courcelles. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- I kind of understand the frustration here, as Francis went to a lot of effort to make his case for a merge but the discussion got stuck at three participants with no one to tip the scales. Still, trying to hammer it through by edit-warring now in the face of no consensus seems amazingly unwise. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- The discussion didn't get "stuck at three participants". There was zero support for the merge, and opposition from everyone except the proposer (Francis Schonken). That's a clear consensus against the merge. If wider input had been sought, it easily could have been via neutral project-talk notifications. Instead, FS edit-warred against consensus, even after two ANI threads on his behavior and being blocked for six weeks because of it. Softlavender (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Elmidae, as to why there weren't more participating there, I know from long experience that participating or even witnessing any talk page discussion with FS is so futile and exhausting that most editors in the classical music area now simply avoid talk page discussions involving him. His chief weapons in content and personal disputes are festooning the article with maintenance tags or parking merge or split templates at the top.
- The discussion didn't get "stuck at three participants". There was zero support for the merge, and opposition from everyone except the proposer (Francis Schonken). That's a clear consensus against the merge. If wider input had been sought, it easily could have been via neutral project-talk notifications. Instead, FS edit-warred against consensus, even after two ANI threads on his behavior and being blocked for six weeks because of it. Softlavender (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- His behaviour on Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 and its talk page in April–May 2016 is a particularly egregious example, but not an isolated one. Gerda Arendt and another editor brought the article to Featured status in March 2016. One month after its promotion FS showed up and started making swingeing changes to the content with no prior discussion [51]. This included unilaterally moving the page to a new title [52] and edit-warring [53], [54] to keep it there. Gerda objected to the page move and participated in the post hoc discussion on the talk page but Francis refused to participate any further in that discussion and unilaterally closed it after less than a day. Instead of initiating a proper requested move discussion with wider participation, he festooned the article with maintenance tags and said he was taking it to FAR with the intent of getting it demoted because it was "unstable" [55]. The FAR was closed as out of process but he continued his bulldozing. On the talk page he copied editors' comments on other talk pages with their signatures, misleadingly refactoring them as he saw fit, and failing to provide links to the original context [56]. By 20 May the article was still festooned with tags and virtually all of its previous editors, including its main editor had been driven away. Its talk page became an unreadable mess and a place where FS talked only to himself. It finally came to an end when one of the TFA coordinators archived the discussions and removed all the maintenance tags from the article [57].
- It was a similar tactic FS used at the DYK nomination for An Wasserflüssen Babylon in June of this year. It was stalled for 3 and a half months before it finally passed. It led to the withdrawal of the original reviewer from the God-awful melee and an IBAN between FS and another of the discussants [58]. Nothing so far has worked—not the recent lengthy discussion resulting in the IBAN, not a community-imposed 6 month restriction to one revert per page in any calendar month in 2016 [59], and not the seven blocks for edit-warring prior to today's 1-year block by Fram which I whole-heartedly support. Voceditenore (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Cripes! I just noticed that he even edit-warred on the talk page of the current article in dispute to remove a comment by Nikkimaria with a completely spurious "justification" [60], [61]. See what I mean about his talk page behaviour? Voceditenore (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- It was a similar tactic FS used at the DYK nomination for An Wasserflüssen Babylon in June of this year. It was stalled for 3 and a half months before it finally passed. It led to the withdrawal of the original reviewer from the God-awful melee and an IBAN between FS and another of the discussants [58]. Nothing so far has worked—not the recent lengthy discussion resulting in the IBAN, not a community-imposed 6 month restriction to one revert per page in any calendar month in 2016 [59], and not the seven blocks for edit-warring prior to today's 1-year block by Fram which I whole-heartedly support. Voceditenore (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Particularly in light of his recent six-week block, which was imposed upon him for doing more or less the same thing. I'm inclined to support an indefinite block in this case, with an appeal being available to him in six months time. He seems unwilling or unable to learn from his mistakes, which would unfortunately mean that he is not suited for a collaborative environment such as this. Kurtis (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Blocked for one year. The sheer stupidity or stubbornness of starting the same behaviour that earned them their previous block immediately again is not acceptable. While I don't agree with the statements by Softlavender about the Mathsci situation, which was bad from both sides, not one-sided harassment but two-sided unacceptable behaviour, I fully agree that their actions here are just beyond the pale. I gave one year to offer them one final chance, but if discussion here decides otherwise (more lenient or harsher), feel free to change it of course. Fram (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Responding to the ping. Although I am on a Wikileave, I am not retired. I concur with the block. I have myself experienced Francis Schonken's uncollaborative behaviour first-hand. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Pinged as well, good block. Courcelles (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like a good block to me, and I'm not exactly block-happy. Coming back to edit-war over the very same thing that you got blocked for 60 days for is quite enough to show that an editor isn't here to collaborate. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Endorse seeing as it's clear that after many blocks, it hasn't been sinking in. User can always be indeffed next time if they go back to this behavior after their one year block is up. I know from experience as a formerly banned user that oftentimes it's the longer/indef blocks that actually convince someone to participate in a collaborative manner. It took me an indefinite block (three years) before I realized what being part of a collaborative project really meant, so I'm inclined to agree with the above that Francis doesn't have the temperament to participate in a collaborative project (at least not at this time).—Mythdon 21:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
User talk:195.204.12.242
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
195.204.12.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Please remove talk page privileges. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Suspicious mass creation
Another editor noticed earlier that roughly 30+ accounts were created, en-masse in roughly the same 3-5 minutes followed by the bulk of these accounts creating identical userpages in the same minute. SQL threw together a list (though it's missing a few) you can see here: User:SQL/Creationbot. There are two or three sets of text they've used which are all variations of each other. My first thought was a class or edit-a-thon but this doesn't seem to be remotely similar to any that I've seen and the fact that all the accounts were created at roughly the same time with identical text seems too bot-like. Can we get an admin or functionary to take a look and assess? And here is a quick plain url list I grabbed. I also am unsure if I need to notify all 40 accounts, so if that's a problem, let me know. Praxidicae (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- They appear to be students from (Redacted).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Bbb23 Thanks. Sorry to worry anyone, just seemed to be suspicious given the rapid creation. Praxidicae (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: is that appearance based on CU data? If these were all from the same address we could have a throttle malfunction going on with account creation. — xaosflux Talk 14:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Different IPs in the same range.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- xaosflux That's actually why I was suspicious, because there was no throttle. Praxidicae (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Somebody's harassing me on French Wikipedia?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't speak French so I can't raise the issue on the French equivalent of ANI. They've made one contribution on the French Wikipedia, which is harassing me (in English): [62]. And their username doesn't appear to exist on the English Wikipedia. Thanks for your help. --ChiveFungi (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- @ChiveFungi: Despite everything I heard about French people, I'm pretty sure fr-wiki admins, at least some of them, speak English. I'd just post it to fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs and ask them to please handle this as they see fit. Regards SoWhy 16:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well yes, we do happen to have some English speakers on the French wiki, actually quite many since a good proportion of our articles are translated from en:wiki :) Also not everyone on the French wiki is French, app. 70% the rest being Belgians, Swiss, Quebecois... Anyway, I blocked the troll. Best regards From the French Wiki :) --Kimdime (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Ahmedadan1951
Ahmedadan1951 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Ahmedadan1951 (not pinging)
See his talk page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barawa_District&diff=863587274&oldid=861918419 adds a link that I do not believe is real. As he seems to learn from my cues, I'm not going to publicly say why. But if you look at my history and his talk page, you probably know who to trust. And I'm not even interested in Somalia. I only got caught up in this shitstorm because he uploaded an image that I mass-tagged with a template without even looking at it, putting it on my watchlist.
For clarity, either the user is real (which I highly doubt) and it's some rebel leader in Somalia who shouldn't edit anything due to COI, or, more likely, we are dealing with a bored teenager. Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Also, he just restored his unsourced crap on some articles like Barawa (and added unsourced crap to others). Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: Please notify subject that you have posted here about them, as per instructions at the top of the page when you post here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Dlohcierekim: can/should I post somewhere else where that is not required? Any information he gets just helps him evade detection. Alexis Jazz (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- How exactly? At any rate, they edit so sporadically, they won't even notice a short block. They've had a couple for (wait for it) making unsourced edits. I'm a little trigger happy, but leave it to the regulars for now. We aren't in a hurry.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: When I look at your history, it looks like you follow them around.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Dlohcierekim: not exactly. After his messing around with made-up flags a few months ago, Barawa and some related pages ended up on my watchlist. But it wasn't until now when he made an edit to Barawa that I noticed he woke up again. So I just undid his unsourced September edits. FYI, Ahmedadan1951 (or someone extremely close to him) operates the websites for which he adds links to articles about Somalia. https://www.parliament.gov.so/ is the website of the Somali government and I doubt they would consider any of this very funny. Alexis Jazz (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Dlohcierekim: can/should I post somewhere else where that is not required? Any information he gets just helps him evade detection. Alexis Jazz (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
user:Kishor salvi india
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
user:Kishor salvi india is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Few days ago, he kept adding himself to caste of Tujhyat Jeev Rangala, and added his name to a few lists, and even one category. He was warned appropriately every time. After one similar edit, I gave him "final warning". Few hours after that warning, he created an article about himself. By the time i saw it, the user was inactive, and I thought he stopped editing. But he did it again a few hours ago from now. I think its time for a block. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Indeffed. Clearly NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
188.137.40.75
This editor is still vandalizing Wiki. Look at what he’s down to Top Wing. I think we need to block him for 3 months so he’ll learn his lesson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B06D:6643:6951:D62C:9376:E0D9 (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- There's a separate noticeboard for vandalism.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- That, and it isn't "Wiki". SemiHypercube ✎ 01:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Not really vandalism. Unsourced. Blocked-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- And no, three months isn't needed. Use a talk page. The link to it is right next to the IP. Also, if you are who I think you are (and I won't divulge), you have a blocked account with a WP:SO hopefully still open, but you haven't learned anything from your absence. Stop acting unkind and lashing out at IPs. Nate • (chatter) 02:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- 1 week.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- And no, three months isn't needed. Use a talk page. The link to it is right next to the IP. Also, if you are who I think you are (and I won't divulge), you have a blocked account with a WP:SO hopefully still open, but you haven't learned anything from your absence. Stop acting unkind and lashing out at IPs. Nate • (chatter) 02:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Not really vandalism. Unsourced. Blocked-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- That, and it isn't "Wiki". SemiHypercube ✎ 01:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Demolytionman420
Demolytionman420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The above user has been here over 4 years. Since he's never deleted anything from, nor archived his talk, everything is there. Excepting a few edits at the beginning, he's strictly a SPA on articles associated with Juggalo culture. He's been repeatedly warned about adding unsourced content, but continues to do it. I do not recall ever seeing a talk page with so many warnings for copyright issues, including three in the last two days. I'm not sure whether it's CIR, NOTHERE or UPE, but whatever it is, it needs to stop. Was blocked for disruptive editing in the last couple months. If the user cannot explain why he continues to do things he's been repeatedly warned not to do, I think an Indeff may be in order. As I said, I think his talk paints a very clear picture. If you want diffs, just ask. John from Idegon (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have given this editor an indefinite block. I welcome any administrator to lift the block if the editor agrees to comply with policies and guidelines, and to communicate with editors who express concerns. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well, that about covers it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)