Accesscrawl (talk | contribs) →Gaming for Extended confirmed userright: new section |
|||
Line 604: | Line 604: | ||
:I fixed it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Hangon_preload_A7&diff=875044565&oldid=874980613 thus]. —[[User:teb728|teb728]] [[User talk:teb728|t]] [[Special:Contributions/teb728|c]] 10:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC) |
:I fixed it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Hangon_preload_A7&diff=875044565&oldid=874980613 thus]. —[[User:teb728|teb728]] [[User talk:teb728|t]] [[Special:Contributions/teb728|c]] 10:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Gaming for Extended confirmed userright == |
|||
See talk page history of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P._Susheela&action=history [[User:Accesscrawl|Accesscrawl]] ([[User talk:Accesscrawl|talk]]) 15:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:15, 23 December 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) |
|
Long-term WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by User:Leo Freeman
- Leo Freeman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Added "Armenian architecture" to the Islamic architecture page without source. No edit summary/explanation.[1]
- Added "Armenian Renaissance" to the Macedonian art (Byzantine) page without source, explanation or edit summary.[2]
- Tried to put WP:UNDUE weight on a possible Armenian origin of a Byzantine ruling dynasty, through sheer edit-warring.[3]-[4]-[5]
- Added "Armenian" to the Philippicus (general) page without edit summary/sources.[6]
- Completely overhauls the stable revision on the Armenia page, changing the "establishment date" of Armenia from the 6th century BC to 2492 BC without edit summary/explanation.[7] When Calthinus restored the original version, "Leo Freeman" restored his version, thus ignoring WP:BRD and WP:WAR. MIND YOU; Calthinus made a talk page section in September 2018 about the very same content, but "Leo Freeman" never bothered to participate.[8]
- Removed the Georgian transliteration on the Mushki page, using an edit summary "Nothing Georgian, they are connected much more with Armenians".[9]
- Replaced the Hebrew transliteration from the lede of a church in Jerusalem with an Armenian transliteration. No edit summary/explanation[10]
- Changed "Persian" to "Armenian", even though the Armenian in question served as a general in the Persian armies.[11]
- Added "Armenians in Bulgaria" to the article of a Bulgarian ruler. No edit summary/explanation.[12]
- Removes the Georgian transliteration of a town related to Georgian history, but keeping the Armenian one. No edit summary/explanation[13]
- Edit warring on Henrikh Mkhitaryan in order to add a link to "Armenians".[14]-[15]
- Changed "seventh century BC" to "2nd millenium BC" without source and edit summary/explanation (i.e. making Armenians "more ancient").[16]
- Added "Armenian" to the Proto-Greek language article without edit summary/explanation.[17]
- Added Armenian Highlands to the Peoples of the Caucasus in Turkey article without edit summary/explanation.[18]
- Edit-warring on the Sabre Dance article in order to remove the Russian transliteration (a ballet composed by a Soviet-Armenian composer and conductor).[19]-[20]
- Added "Armenian satrap" to the lede of a ruler of the Persian Empire. No edit summary/explanation[21]
- Added unsourced content to the Armenian language page. No edit summary/explanation.[22]
I issued him an AA2 warning in the past with clear examples of his disruptive editorial pattern, to which he unfortunately never replied.[23] Looking at the compelling evidence, I don't think this editor is here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- I was not aware of the depth of how problematic this pattern was before -- I had only interacted with the ultranationalist edits on Armenia, i.e. attempts to date Armenia's history back to a "traditional" date with no sourcing at all before 2400 BC. Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. --Calthinus (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Dear LouisAragon, I can't understand why you are so obsessed with my route, that was you who wrote me you are not saying my edits are "incorrect", isn't it ? Even the fellow list, you have chosen and put here, is absolutely correct, based on historical facts and on the basis to develop Wikipedia. Just as an example taking even editing about Proto-Greek, assume, you know certainly it was proper. So concerning traditional date "2492 BC" in the article "Armenia", one more time, friends, it is traditional (!) date, legend, and it was written not as a fact but certainly, I quote from the article - "Traditional date 2492 BC" [Battle of Hayoc Dzor / Հայոց ձորի ճակատամարտ, recommend to see “"HAYK", The Legend of Hayk and Bel] was / is it acceptable ? guess yes. And it was the basic view of that article for many years, before user Calthinus determined about its ultranationalist concept. You can see on the page "Japan" the traditional date - "660 BC", why it is not ultranationalist for you Calthinus ? Your way of thinking and ideology are ambidextrous. Because what you argue has nothing to do with nationalism, protocronism, that is encyclopedical issue, information. And I insist we must keep the traditional date as it was before, with the "Formation and independence" + of course, other data you deleted with it - Hayasa-Azzi (1500–1290 BC), Arme-Shupria (14th century–1190) and so on until the Orontid dynasty 6th century BC, not just (!) from the Orontid dynasty. The Armenian "Establishment history" is partial, uncompleted with your renovations and intentions Calthinus. Please, reconsider your approach to the issue. Leo Freeman (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- Em, no, I produced sufficient and comprehensive scholarship, including Armenian scholarship, not only debunking the myth you are trying to restore in the infobox, but showing how it arose out of attempts by ethnonationalists to reframe global history. And I doubt LouisAragon will take this seriously either. --Calthinus (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- This requires admin involvement. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- There is a pattern here of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS behavoir via WP:BATTLEGROUND editing by @Leo Freeman. I do agree with the filing party that administrator attention is needed.Resnjari (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- This requires admin involvement. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Em, no, I produced sufficient and comprehensive scholarship, including Armenian scholarship, not only debunking the myth you are trying to restore in the infobox, but showing how it arose out of attempts by ethnonationalists to reframe global history. And I doubt LouisAragon will take this seriously either. --Calthinus (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Dear LouisAragon, I can't understand why you are so obsessed with my route, that was you who wrote me you are not saying my edits are "incorrect", isn't it ? Even the fellow list, you have chosen and put here, is absolutely correct, based on historical facts and on the basis to develop Wikipedia. Just as an example taking even editing about Proto-Greek, assume, you know certainly it was proper. So concerning traditional date "2492 BC" in the article "Armenia", one more time, friends, it is traditional (!) date, legend, and it was written not as a fact but certainly, I quote from the article - "Traditional date 2492 BC" [Battle of Hayoc Dzor / Հայոց ձորի ճակատամարտ, recommend to see “"HAYK", The Legend of Hayk and Bel] was / is it acceptable ? guess yes. And it was the basic view of that article for many years, before user Calthinus determined about its ultranationalist concept. You can see on the page "Japan" the traditional date - "660 BC", why it is not ultranationalist for you Calthinus ? Your way of thinking and ideology are ambidextrous. Because what you argue has nothing to do with nationalism, protocronism, that is encyclopedical issue, information. And I insist we must keep the traditional date as it was before, with the "Formation and independence" + of course, other data you deleted with it - Hayasa-Azzi (1500–1290 BC), Arme-Shupria (14th century–1190) and so on until the Orontid dynasty 6th century BC, not just (!) from the Orontid dynasty. The Armenian "Establishment history" is partial, uncompleted with your renovations and intentions Calthinus. Please, reconsider your approach to the issue. Leo Freeman (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Topic ban proposal
Based on the evidence and the discussion above, I propose a 6-month WP:AA2 topic ban (broadly construed) 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Balkans, the Middle East and the Caucasus region. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
LouisAragon this isn't broad enough. Given what you have demonstrated about his history, and especially his tendencies to attribute accomplishments in the histories of the Levant, Greece, Georgia, and Iran to Armenians, I propose broadening the ban to cover all topics in the Balkans, the Middle East, and the Caucasus region. --Calthinus (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Done. You're right. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support--Calthinus (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support per the above evidences.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support, as per reasons outlined.Resnjari (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support; Strong evidences (as diffs), are provided. Rekonedth (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Support a topic ban for all topics Balkans, the Middle East, and the Caucasus region — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Bloodofox
Pretty much over the last few hours a constant barrage of assumptions of bad faith, dismissing based upon accusations of ideological bias and accusations of coordinating. AS well as a refusal to stop.
[[24]]
[[25]]
[[26]]
[[27]]
[[28]]
[[29]]
[[30]]
[[31]]
I have asked them to stop [[32]].
Note there is in fact a lot more of this. over at [[33]], I just got bored listing it all, and frankly that is the problem. This is getting boring and tedious.Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- To note, I'm also rather bored by Slatersteven's behavior here, along with that of his friend @Fyunck(click): (here's a fun diff). While the site allows proponents of this stuff—anti-global warming "alarmists", Young Earth creationists—to edit, anti-heretic coordination (lots of fun stiff like this) while ignoring guidelines like WP:PROVEIT and espousing anti-science stuff gets old pretty quickly (eg. [34]), and of course when all other options run out, they'll drag you out here in hope of a reprimand to get what they want. Anything to avoid finding reliable sources, I guess.
- I could also flood you folks with plenty of diffs of attempts to get out of WP:RS and stuff like Slater badgering me with an incorrect revert warning while turning a blind eye to his pal's itchy trigger finger (classic), but do note that now that attempts at keeping cryptozoology from being listed as a pseudoscience on the site have failed, the goal here seems to simply get links to Dave's biblical cryptid emporium on Wikipedia or whatever wherever possible, so please do take a look at the threads associated with the diffs, as these articles definitely need more eyes.
- Maybe one of these guys knows who has been sending me anonymous threats through the site about me editing the cryptozoology articles. Care to share, guys? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Did you even read that thread [[35]]?Slatersteven (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- I take it that was such a blatant display of anti-consensus revert-warring on Fyunck's part that you decided to step in. Personally, were I for some reason taking your position, I'd be doing more of that. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- No I do not know who is sending you anonymous threats (nor am I even aware it was happening or what their nature is). If you are being sent anonymous threats you need to contact an Admin, or launch ANI over it. But I resent the implication of your comment, it is a prefect example of your aspersion tactics.Slatersteven (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- As I've mentioned these threats a few times now, you were in fact aware of it. Only now are you acknowledging that. I've notified admins. I'm not keeping quiet about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Did you even read that thread [[35]]?Slatersteven (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Could one of you please post a link to the RfC/discussion that is frequently mentioned on Talk:List of cryptids? It's hard for uninvolved editors to form an opinion without that. Bishonen | talk 21:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC).
- Sure, it's at the top here: [36]. Below you'll find an addendum that we also mention a lot. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I saw a notice on my talk page, but not sure what is required of me here, or what would help the situation. Am I fed up with editor Bloodofox's reverts and article ownership, yes. BF seems to think that if it is not science-related it has no place on wikipedia. BF seems to ignore mythology articles with mythology sources, fantasy Tolkien beast articles with sources from non-science Tolkien books (such as articles on Balrogs, Orcs, Hobbits, Ents, Noldor, etc.), Ghost articles with sources from ghost books. These fantasy articles exist all over wikipedia, but this particular article at List of cryptids seems to be particularly hated by this editor. I'm not sure why. It's not like it's being inserted into a scientific article or being portrayed as anything except a pseudoscience. I guess I look at it as fun and as long as readers are aware of that I see no harm. And this is just a list... a simple list of fantasy cryptid creatures. Did I warn editor Bloodofox on his talk page (without reporting the incident to administrators) about 5 reverts in one day at List of Cryptids, yes. Has he just made a backhand accusation about me threatening him offline (or knowing someone who did), yes. That does not mean I would have brought him to Ani as I have begun to look at it as "This is par for the course for Bloodofox", it's just Bloodofox being Bloodofox these days. I know I have to keep the article on a watchlist in case he tries to delete things as they have done in the past or in case he writes fabrications about me on article talk pages. I just wish he'd find something else to work on at Wikipedia as cryptozoology-related things do not seem to be a topic where BFox works and plays well with others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- As one of the most prolific editors on the topic of folklore and its popular genre myth on the site, I appreciate the humor this response has brought me, unintentional or otherwise. Yes, please, do tell us more about how we source our myth and folklore articles on the site! None of those filthy academics on our folklore articles, no siree. @Katolophyromai:, you're going to enjoy this one. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Right, all the sources on an article like Paul Bunyan are all scientific in nature. No Folklore books or websites used at all. Good old sources like Folklore and folktales collected by Charles E. Brown, the Paul Bunyan Fine Art souvenir collection of ready-made myths, Lumberjack Myths by J.E. Rockwell, Fearsome Creatures of the Underwoods, the MF Amazing facts page. I'm not complaining about that page but one persons junk is another persons gold. I'm just saying treat articles on fantasy and myths and folklore equally, and stop the reverts you do on a regular basis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not the wisest path for you to take here, but since I've seen you play this game before and this is a fine place to highlight it, why not.
- Right, all the sources on an article like Paul Bunyan are all scientific in nature. No Folklore books or websites used at all. Good old sources like Folklore and folktales collected by Charles E. Brown, the Paul Bunyan Fine Art souvenir collection of ready-made myths, Lumberjack Myths by J.E. Rockwell, Fearsome Creatures of the Underwoods, the MF Amazing facts page. I'm not complaining about that page but one persons junk is another persons gold. I'm just saying treat articles on fantasy and myths and folklore equally, and stop the reverts you do on a regular basis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Of course, that particular article definitely needs some work—it's not GA quality by any means, which is presumably why you chose it for your feature above—but you'll still find a handful of quality secondary sources on there, like Gartenberg's solid 1949 article for the The Journal of American Folklore. Still, our Paul Bunyan definitely needs work and is currently nowhere near the quality of other highly visible folklore articles like Dragon at the moment (read 'em and weep: Dragon#References). You might also have a look-see at other GA-quality articles in this realm, like valkyrie; eg. Valkyrie#Citations.
- Understanding the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is crucial here, and of course we slice out poor quality sources on these pages just like anywhere else we see it (it's that whole WP:RS thing again and those pesky academics who think they just know so much, damn them!). And so I'm a little confused: Are you asking me to clean that one up? Is this a cry for help? If so, I'm afraid I'm currently booked, but go for it! :bloodofox: (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Here's what should happen: topic ban both fyunck(click) and bloodofox from list of cryptids. Very narrow topic ban. No blocks, no subject-based topic ban; just that one list and presto! much pain disappears! The former has been working to include everything and anything without much regard for sourcing for years; the latter has been waging war on this page for years, with a persistent battleground approach and a tendency to wikilawyer. It's draining, and why I unwatched a few months back. Mainly, bloodofox is dreadful to argue with once he has categorized you as a wikipolicy-hating fringe POV pusher who's probably part of Big Cryptozoology -- paraphrasing there, but when he accused me of being part of some ridiculous "cryptozoology bloc" he became the only experienced editor I've ever asked not to post on my talk page, to the best of my recollection. I would very much like to see bloodofox's time that was spent fixated on this page spent instead on the folklore articles he does a lot of great work to. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: What are you talking about? I have always said we must include sourcing on every item on the list. I recommended an extra column several times so we could source these things properly. I even started a draft of it before Bloodofox basically told me it was useless and I had to ask him to stop hammering on me on my own talk page. You say I'm "working to include everything and anything without much regard for sourcing"... can you tell me how many of these creatures I've added to the list? I don't know if I've added any and I've deleted several when people try to add new ones where I couldn't find sources for cryptid. My stance has always been the same... if it can be sourced as a cryptid it belongs on the list as long as it's sourced as such. That's pretty much it. Another item I'd like to ask. Long ago when I removed a few entries on a completely different topic, just because there was no sourcing (it was not a BLP) I was told by an administrator not to do that. If it was inflammatory items sure. I was asked if I looked for sources myself to make sure since sometimes it was simply careless sourcing rather than an item that should really be removed. I was told that this would be the nicer way to do things. Are you saying I was told wrong way back then? Did bloodofox look at all to make sure he wasn't deleting things that were easily sourced? Or did he just blanket remove anything unsourced KNOWING that there were editors on the talk page who basically said no to his arbitrary time limit? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- I’ll be glad to respond to the above mention with diffs when I’m not on phone here. In the mean time, I recommend taking the above summary with a little salt, as he’s relentlessly backed Fyunck and Slater every step of the way, including pushing for the inclusion of fringe sources over reliable sources, making reverts at convenient times over WP:PROVEIT for the the duo, and explicitly stating that he’s placing votes simply because he’s seen my name through the entire process. The user appears to have developed an axe to grind.
- That said, I’ll volunteer a self-article ban for a year if that means deleting all unsourced content, and self-imposed one year article bans for Rhodo, Slater, and Fyunck, as I agree with Rhodo that my time is spent best elsewhere and the remaining editors can no doubt hash it out from there. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wow, how noble of you! You agree to an article ban if you're given everything you want first. Your comments here are simply drenched in WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, none of that old discussion involving you and I was at all personal, and it's hardly a reason to turn this discussion into a 'hey, I also wasn't able to use a source after Bloodofox requested others take a closer look at it' shiv party. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, I have no memory of that, but if it suits you to think that I made my comment based on our "history" together, and not because you're exhibiting pretty much pure battleground behavior right here on this thread, so be it -- whatever gets you through the night, as John Lennon sang. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, none of that old discussion involving you and I was at all personal, and it's hardly a reason to turn this discussion into a 'hey, I also wasn't able to use a source after Bloodofox requested others take a closer look at it' shiv party. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wow, how noble of you! You agree to an article ban if you're given everything you want first. Your comments here are simply drenched in WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) extra indent for clarity. I'm going to reply to this one misleading, well-poisoning response. However, as I find engaging with bloodofox very draining and unpleasant, I'm going to try to limit myself to this one response rather than be drawn into a more protracted back-and-forth. It would be better left to fresh eyes to determine what should happen, anyway.
"[I] relentlessly backed..."
someone I just said should be topic banned..."[I've made] reverts at convenient times [...] for the duo?"
-- this sort of insinuation that I (or others) are part of some conspiracy or coordinated effort to thwart him pervades bloodofox's rhetoric about this."explicitly stating that he’s placing votes simply because he’s seen my name through the entire process"
-- There was one time that someone else brought up an issue about cryptozoology. This was around the time that I came to appreciate the depth of bloodofox's battleground approach to this page. It seemed like yet another thread on the same subject. When I commented on it, I started by saying it was another instance of bloodofox vs. list of cryptids. I misread who started the thread. I realized my mistake a few minutes later, reverted myself, and posted a revised comment, which I would have posted anyway, of course, had I read it correctly. In this faux pas bloodofox has found a useful well-poisoning tool, making it seem like (a) I made that mistake more than once, and/or (b) that I only care about the content because it's bloodofox, rather than the reverse.- According to the stats tool, I have a net of -34k on that page (as in, removing a bunch -- the very thing that bloodofox fights for), but bloodofox focuses on the one key thing on which we have repeatedly disagreed. That one thing is also the thing about which he charges that, effectively "[whoever disagrees] spits on WP:RS and loves FRINGE sources". It's not about basic WP:V. That's uncontroversial. Saying it's just about wanting sources is misleading. When I've reverted him and restored unsourced information it was not for that reason but because of a bigger picture problem with his removal. For example, a couple reverts when he edit warred over blanking the page last year (two of many attempts to kill the page).
- The main point of contention is this: whether WP:RS says that no cryptozoology source can be used to verify a subject's inclusion in the list. We even had an RfC recently. The closer said rather explicitly that just isn't the case -- they're not prohibited from fulfilling that verification role, even though obviously better sources are better. We can use our WP:RS guidelines to determine which cryptozoology sources are better than others. It's not all or nothing. Obviously most cryptozoology sources are lousy for most things. In this list article, however, the issue isn't whether to use them to make a scientific claim or even a statement of fact beyond "x is a cryptid". It's simply that part of the inclusion criteria for this list article is, self-evidently, that a source verifies the entry is regarded as a cryptid. Cryptid is part of the vocabulary of cryptozoology, hence a lot of the sources which say "this is a cryptid" are about cryptozoology. I have argued that there exist sources about cryptozoology that can be reliable for this sort of verification (a book about it published by a publisher that has editorial oversight, for example, but not someone's blog -- the sort of thing fyunck wants to include). So I'm one of the cryptozoologist pov-pushers, clearly. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- So, about what Rhodo calls a "faux pas" above: While he takes the time there to complain how miserable it was to talk to me—a shame, I don't mind talking—he didn't take the time to provide a diff, but here it is. The anger is real, folks. Rhodo also fails to note that the source he's pushing is specifically a book by cryptozoologist and cryptozoology apologetic George Eberhart, which is just as reliable Uncle Jim's Creationist Cryptid Emporium or whatever, because Eberhart does not appear to be some kind of authority in the subculture. And despite the addendum's commentary and as others highlight, the list wasn't build around Eberhart's criteria, and that's because nobody seems to use it but Eberhart. Eberhart might not believe every other "cryptid" is a space alien or a demon or a ghost or whatever, but many others do, as he himself disapprovingly notes. Eberhart, Uncle Jim, it's all pseudoscience with zero support in academia, and happens to all be closely tied to well-funded and aggressive Young Earth creationist groups (academic discussion on this topic here).
- Speaking of, you'll hear Rhodo talk about a 'cryptozoology bloc', as if it's something I've imagined and as if I haven't had to deal with groups of cryptozoologists here. And, in fact, as if I haven't witnessed their attempts to organize off Wikipedia to influence our coverage here (I'll hold back on providing a bunch of forums I've been tipped off to so I don't somehow out anyone who isn't using their user name here, but here's what seems to be a safe enough example, complete with a fun comment by the author on how "The wikipedia wars will be resolved in due time". (By the way, blog author, if you're reading this—you probably are—I am not somehow affiliated with Darren Naish and I welcome you to keep leaving "highly critical" reviews of his books on Amazon if you so desire.)
- And that brings me to: rage at bloodofox! A lot of the rage you're seeing from these quarters aimed at yours truly stems in fact not from this list. Rather, much of this hate ultimately draws from the fact that Wikipedia now lists cryptozoology as a pseudoscience, a direct result of article long hours of clean up by myself and other editors. See, in the past, the site hosted thousands of articles that imagined cryptozoology to be some kind of field of zoology (as Loxton and Prothero note, this is a typical habit of the cryptozoology subculture). Old Wikipedia "cryptid" articles in turn fed into a lot of the uncritical, often older listicle-quality media articles you'll see Slater add to the list of cryptids. Having your pet pseudoscience listed on Wikipedia for what it is just ain't great SEO for the subculture.
- At the end of the day, what some here are presenting as complicated is extremely simple—It's exactly what we've encountered with every other pseudoscience on the site: Attempts to get around WP:RS wherever possible, especially WP:FRINGE (especially-especially WP:FRIND). Proponents know that cryptozoologists don't agree on what a "cryptid" is, they know cryptozoology stuff doesn't meet WP:RS because it's by no stretch reliable even for describing what is or is not a "cryptid", and they know reliable sources are out there for anything notable (which I've often provided). But they simply don't like what they say about the pseudoscience. Again, this stuff doesn't yield the excellent SEO the subculture used to enjoy from Wikipedia.
- Of course, we can always go back to articles like this rather than allow editors who aim to improve our folklore coverage make them into articles like this. Only time will tell. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Fyunck's behavior deserves some scrutiny here. Bloodofox removed unsourced content which is generally appropriate, especially given recent consensus. Fyunck reinserted the unsourced entries with the edit summary "Wow...". This is blatant disregard for our sourcing policies, and no effort was made to justify the reintroduction of any of these items. I've already found a few that cannot be described as cryptids. –dlthewave ☎ 04:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Please, anything to make the cryptid pain stop. This has been a tedious recurrent issue at WP:FT/N. I think Rhododendrites's proposal for a double TBAN sounds like it could work. Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- You know I didn't open this discussion, I was kindly pinged to come here. Editors have been trying to add sourcing to the article and it has been happening. I added 3 sources earlier today from among those Bloodofox deleted. And I'm not the one with 5 reverts a day. But heck, I could care less about cryptozoology as long as it's a topic treated fairly. If you're putting me in the same boat as Bloodofox I have no problem being topic banned from all crytozoology articles as long as the same happens to Bloodofox. I also have no problem doing it voluntarily as long as it's reciprocated on the other end. I think seeing his conduct towards others was the main reason I stuck around to help out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- I fully agree with Rhododenrites' characterization that:
Mainly, bloodofox is dreadful to argue with once he has categorized you as a wikipolicy-hating fringe POV pusher who's probably part of Big Cryptozoology
. Having done great work on folklore articles, the editor some time ago decided that a) cryptozoology is folklore and nothing but folklore, b) it is Bad Folklore if not covered in the Ulterior Academic Journal of Erudite Mythopoeia and in that case must be removed entirely from Wikipedia, and c) their previous work has given them the authority to bludgeon every cryptozoology topic with outright ownership and generously made-up interpretations of often inapplicable sourcing guidelines. - Sorry, I'm still a bit raw here; I've unwatched most CZ articles because I couldn't deal with that anymore. The constant insistence that CZ sources may not even be used to demonstrate that a topic falls into the subject area, and pretending that there is any kind of consensus in that regard (there isn't), finally did me in. See the more detailed account given above by Rhododendrites.
- At the same time, the unsourced addition of crypto stuff is a complete pain, and so is the attempt to validate factual CZ claims with breathless sighting accounts, navel-gazing blogs, and the entire shebang of dodgy sources that flourishes in that ecosystem. Those need to be patrolled and headed off because they actively damage our credibility. What is not desirable is the status quo of that necessary vigilance coming packaged, on part of one highly active editor, with a barely restrained zeal to see the entire subject area razed and salted, saving the bits that have been treated in a monograph on the comparative iconology of the Ishtar gate.
- Instead of topic bans, I think it would be much preferable to once and for all establish clear guidelines as to what constitutes acceptable sourcing for a given type of claim about a cryptozoology topic. Previous attempts to start an RfC in that regard were rebuffed because "that's all covered already". Well, it clearly isn't. Let's get that RfC going, and then we can all get behind a unified approach to cleaning up cryptozoology articles on WP and keeping them clean. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure that will work, we had an RFC which (In effect) said (after some clarification) that we could use a certain sources, and Bloodfox has refused to accept the clarification, and rather used his interpretation of the RFC closure.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Slater, the RfC made no such establishment, as the users commenting made clear (a thread that in fact did not include comments from yours truly). The "certain" source you're referring to is specifically a book by cryptozoologist George Eberhart.
- Elimidae, while I strongly disagree with your assessment, I agree that a proper RfC on sourcing on this article would in fact potentially go a long way at this point. With our without me, this stuff will simply continue to rear its head in some form or another unless we get this policy and guideline disagreement hashed out. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Rhododendrites solution may be the best, whilst I am not wholly sure the Fyunck is as big an issue as bloodofox his reinstating of Cryptid was an issue that may indicate they may not be able to see this subject in a neutral way. As to adding back non sourced content, so-me of it was sourced when it was removed, and it was such a huge removal it is unnecessarily hard to find which one should have been removed vs the ones that are borderline. As I said on the talk page remove one at a time, some may well be cryptids (and indeed I did find a couple of sources that used the term Cryptid.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse Rhododendrites comments. Bloodofox has been on what could be easily described as a crusade for a long time against anything cryptid-related (I would topic ban both from the topic 'cryptids' broadly) feel free to search the archives at the fringe noticeboard. While there are undoubtedly issues with the area, Bloodofox has given the impression they wont be happy until anything cryptid related is gone. That may not be the case, but its certainly the impression they left me, and their methodology in dealing with the various articles? 'bludgeoning' is too soft a word. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ignoring the fact that Rhodo and Slater have been closely involved in all this for quite some time, exactly what would such a "topic ban" include? You do realize this stuff is all over Wikipedia's coverage entities from the folklore record, correct? :bloodofox: (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse Rhododendrites suggestion as well. I agree with the topic ban suggestion, especially for Bloodofox. The scenario at FTN seems difficult to followup. Anatoliatheo (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
No clear connection to this thread |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This is all getting a bit weired [[37]], made weirder by the fact Bloodfox had in fact logged out between 15:54 and 16:11. This casues me some little concern.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
|
- Though Bloodofox can be snarky, they are one of our more diligent editors for keeping cryptid-related articles compliant with policy. I think any topic ban on the subject would be a net-negative for the project. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Close this circus this is an content dispute plain and simple. Regulars from the Fringe Noticeboard are doing what we often do - and demanding rigorous application of WP:FRINGE, WP:PROFRINGE and WP:RS. There are other editors who put a lot of effort into building this list and, while their passion is commendable, it's a terrible list based, in part, on the fact that "cryptid" is such a poorly defined term that it's next to impossible to create a reliable list of things that fall within the category. Are they animals? Plants? Organisms? Entities? There's no clear boundaries to the category. I mean, one of the entries was for an extinct subspecies of a well-known apex predator. These sorts of conflicts often lead to flaring tempers and Bloodofox is not always the most diplomatic editor. But when you've been through the WP:FRINGE dance on enough of these tedious articles, it's easy to become a bit... short. Suggest we just close this up for the distraction it is and work on making this list a little bit less awful by rigorous application of WP:RS and a willingness to cut the cruft. Simonm223 (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- As a not-quite-yet involved editor who has been watching the article for a while, I support Simonm223's suggestion. - Donald Albury 23:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- If you would like to argue that bloodofox's behavior has been fine or that the quality of his content work gives him a pass on behavior, that's one thing, but this is definitely not a content dispute. Getting into the definition of a cryptid and the validity of that term is making it about the content dispute. I've dealt with all manner of creation scientist, conspiracy theorist, climate change denier, etc. to know the frustration of dealing with that sort. Bloodofox isn't just "fighting the good fight" such that a wave to WP:FRINGE is sufficient to shut down this thread. It's a single goofy list I've proposed a tban on, not cryptozoology wholesale (someone else can propose that if they want, but this is the only place I've observed such problems). Would you really claim that bloodofox is not approaching this list with a textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not a content issue but behavioural complaints, as should be clear from all the comments above. If this were to be closed based on the always-snappy, generally-facile, frequently-wrong "content issue" grounds, we would go straight back to the current enjoyable status quo. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. While trying to build my own educated opinion about this controversy, I have encountered the following sentence
Unfortunately for Montfort, the British knew what had happened to the ships, resulting in a disgraceful revelation for Montfort
in the Pierre Denys de Montfort article. Don't say that this is a simple content controversy, because this shamefully sounds as "British people were allowed to know, but other people not". Such an island-centered formulation should not stay in an inclusive encyclopedia, as could be backed by part of the usual letter soup. Pldx1 (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Carmaker1 Part 6
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I had hoped that it wouldn't come to this again: Carmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
(Past discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
This editor was blocked recently for persistent disruptive behavior, as a result of the previous post on this noticeboard regarding it. His very first edit after the block was more of the same - biting a novice editor with an "only warning". While his edit summaries may be slightly less uncivil, there has been scant improvement (e.g. [42]). He's accused me of "stalking" him because he's apparently under the impression that I have an obligation to remove pages from my watchlist if he edits them. Another snarky comment here, after a "citation needed" tag was placed on an edit he made that directly contradicted other information in the article - and he's still flaunting his claimed insider information in an attempt to "pull rank" and/or intimidate others against questioning him. He has accused Typ932, a well-reputed automotive editor, of disruptive editing in response to one of his edits being questioned where he removed a reliable source and inexplicably removed the citation template from another.
Carmaker1 has repeatedly ([43], [44], [45], [46]) added a designer's name (Jeff Teague) in front of a citation ([47]) in which that name does not appear, and has accused me of being disruptive for removing it when he can't possibly be unaware that it is blatantly misleading. He did eventually add a supporting citation in the article prose, along with leaving me a nasty response in my attempt to engage on his talk page, but still refuses to resolve the issue and doesn't seem to understand why it's misleading. For someone who is incessantly carrying on in edit summaries about how sloppy and careless and disruptive everyone else on Wikipedia is, he doesn't appear to hold himself to the same standard.
Carmaker1 also continues to defy project consensus in his mission to purge Wikipedia of the model-year automotive nomenclature system he seems to loathe (e.g. [48]).
Carmaker1 is either not here to build an encyclopedia and instead has some sort of axe to grind, or simply does not have the temperament to edit cooperatively and constructively. Being that it's the Christmas season I would give him the benefit of the doubt and say that it's the latter, and perhaps a different subject area to focus on and develop positive editing habits with would be helpful. Since automotive articles seem to bring about a significant emotional reaction, possibly related to his claims of being in the industry, I'd suggest, at minimum, an indefinite topic ban from articles relating to motor vehicles, broadly construed, as well as an indefinite ban from posting a level-4im warning on the talk page of any other editor. --Sable232 (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked for a month for the Teague-related hoax. To quote myself at his talk page: Obviously anyone can misread a source or misremember where something came from, but when you're warned that you've added a hoax, and yet you edit-war to ensure that it remain, you've gone well beyond WP:AGF. No comment on anything else, because I've not looked into it. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Good God, given the history, and now we find out he's been hoaxing, how can this not be an indef? EEng 03:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. Fuck a month, this should be indef with a potential ban discussion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 04:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Unless Carmaker1 is intentionally adding false information, I wouldn't call it a hoax. Adding poorly-sourced or unsourced names is very frustrating, but it's different than hoaxing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate, this user was causing the article to include a statement that a source said X, when it obviously didn't say X: that's a hoax, an attempt to deceive readers into believing that a source said something it didn't. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't agree with what Carmaker1 did but he information is right and not a hoax [49]] (blog of a respected car news org), [50]. [[User:sp|spryde] | talk 14:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Coming in here with no background at all, and just looking at this one case, I'd consider calling this a "hoax" is a personal attack with no justification; the user's anger in their unblock request, though misdirected, is a bit understandable. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. This user added a claim that the cited source said something it did not. That compromises the integrity of the page, and when it's done repeatedly, it warrants sanctions more severe than almost anything else. Issues like personal attacks typically don't have any effect on the encyclopedia (and thus no effect on readers), but presenting falsehoods in articles deceives readers. If you don't realize that it's a problem to cite a source to say something it doesn't, go to college and try doing this in a paper, and then come back and tell me how your professor reacted when you got caught. Until then, don't defend this kind of fraudulent activity. Nyttend (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Blah blah blah; none of that says what he's doing is a hoax; unlike many forms of Wikipedia jargon (like WP:CONSENSUS), "hoax" on Wikipedia means exactly what it means in the rest of the world. I'm not defending fraudulent activity, I'm attacking fraudulent attacks. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 17:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. This user added a claim that the cited source said something it did not. That compromises the integrity of the page, and when it's done repeatedly, it warrants sanctions more severe than almost anything else. Issues like personal attacks typically don't have any effect on the encyclopedia (and thus no effect on readers), but presenting falsehoods in articles deceives readers. If you don't realize that it's a problem to cite a source to say something it doesn't, go to college and try doing this in a paper, and then come back and tell me how your professor reacted when you got caught. Until then, don't defend this kind of fraudulent activity. Nyttend (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Coming in here with no background at all, and just looking at this one case, I'd consider calling this a "hoax" is a personal attack with no justification; the user's anger in their unblock request, though misdirected, is a bit understandable. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think it was a hoax, just incompetence regarding WP:INTEGRITY. Based on their persistent struggle with sourcing and their regular reliance on personal knowledge, I suggest a topic-ban from automobiles for 3-6 months; working on articles where they don't have direct personal knowledge may be the only way for them to appreciate Wikipedia's citation standards. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree adding in a side of stubbornness. He added the info with the wrong link on December 10th here. Apparently he and Sable932 don't get along and Sable reverted (correctly). Carmaker1 then blindly reverted but also added the correct source later in a different section that does show who designed what here. Carmaker has been here way too much for the attitude but he definitely is not a hoaxer. If he can stop and understand why someone is doing what they are doing, they may have a much longer stay here. That is independent of whatever topic he is on. spryde | talk 21:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- I doubt it was an intentional hoax - I suspect that after the first instance, Carmaker1 was trying to antagonize me personally rather than deliberately keep misleading information in the article. (As an aside, this is what Carmaker1's grudge against me appears to stem from.) Still, it's disruptive editing and damaging to the page's integrity nonetheless, and his excuse of having eventually added a supporting citation elsewhere in the article doesn't hold up when he intentionally left it misleadingly cited in the infobox.
- Power~enwiki, I maintain that the topic ban should be indefinite, until Carmaker1 can demonstrate competent editing and an understanding of core Wikipedia policies, and be able to edit cooperatively and civilly and respect consensus. Past sanctions clearly have not worked, and I fear that a topic ban expiring in six months would only result in another discussion here in seven. I feel that several months (at minimum) of genuine improvement should be actively demonstrated before a topic ban should be lifted. --Sable232 (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Have to agree with others that there doesn't seem to have been any hoax involved here. This was careless insertion of probably correct info, in a manner that suggested it was supported by an existing ref when it wasn't. Unfortunately it happens way too often on wikipedia, and it's highly problematic but clearly not hoaxing. As others have said, getting the words right do matter since we offend others unnecessarily not to mention confuse both other editors and the original editor when we get them wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Apologies for beleaguering the point, but for the sake of clarity, given that Carmaker1 is, as I've seen other perennially-disruptive editors do, trying to strike a conciliatory tone on his talk page (User talk:Carmaker1#WP:INTEGRITY and User talk:Carmaker1#Claims of Hoaxing) in response to being blocked:
- Carmaker1 added information in front of a citation that didn't contain said information. I removed it, stating as much in my edit summary. He undid that removal, so I removed it yet again, clearly stating "there is no mention of Jeff Teague in the cited source". His response was "yes there is", which is a clear falsehood, as already established. While a correct source was eventually added in the prose, no attempt was made to fix the misleading one. Carmaker1's attempt on his talk page to claim that he didn't know this edit was misleading is a blatant lie, so perhaps EEng is right.
- Carmaker1 trying to weasel his way out of sanctions (look at his contribution history and the previous AN/I discussions - this behavior goes back years) by feigning civility and claiming confusion now that the jig is up makes it appear that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. --Sable232 (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think he is here to build an encyclopedia. He does a hell of a lot of good work but that is marred by the conflicts. I am just not sure if he can get the right temperament to do so. spryde | talk 02:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I didn't see that before but I still wouldn't say there's any sign of hoaxing. First, I'd note that the ref had already been added before the 'yes there is' comment was made [51] [52] so it was true that at the time, there was a source which mentioned Jeff Teague.
Now I think anyone reading the 'yes there is' is going to conclude the 'yes there is' referred to the coachbuilt source especially since Jeff Teague wasn't even mentioned in the prose at the time. But since Carmaker1 had already added the source which did mention Jeff Teague, it's impossible to conclude from the evidence presented there was any deliberate attempt at falsehood and particularly there doesn't seem to have been any hoaxing. It seems easily possible that Carmaker1 was simply very careless and meant the source they added which did mention Jeff Teague. Possibly they confused themselves as to what ref was given in the infobox. Or more likely (based on what they've said on their talk page) were referring to the source they added which did mention Jeff Teague and not the source in the infobox and did so in a very confusing way.
Either way, misleading people into thinking something is in a source when it isn't, is highly problematic in general even when not done deliberately. Although in this case the actual effects are likely to be minimal since realisticly anyone checking to see who was right would check the source themselves and you were never going to change your mind based on Carmaker1 saying it was there when you knew it wasn't. I'd be much more concerned if Carmaker1 added the info and said in an edit summary something like 'As mentioned in cited source'. In that case, the claim may be enough to reassure people who'd AGF and take their statement at face value not realising the problem that had been created. In this case, since the statement was made in response to a dispute, as said there was never a risk of something like that happening.
Maybe more importantly, while it's still highly problematic when not done deliberately, it's reasonable to treat deliberate attempts to mislead different. If someone is deliberate misleading what is in a source, that person should be blocked quickly since to many extents wikipedia relies on people not lying about what's in the sources they provide. When people are people are simply careless, it's worth giving them some chance to learn why it's imperative they are careful what they do so people don't think a source say something it doesn't. (If they don't learn quickly, a block will still be forthcoming.) I haven't looked into the history a great deal, so can't comment on whether Carmaker1 has already well exceeded any allowance for learning not to accidentally mislead.
Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Regardless of Carmaker1's motives, his editing patterns are unproductive - not only this microcosm of it, but the long-standing patterns of angry and uncivil edit summaries, reliance on claims of insider information to justify unsourced or poorly sourced information, and defiance of consensus, all stemming from an apparent crusade to right great wrongs as evidenced in said edit summaries - and there should be a means of requiring him to change that behavior. Considering the two preceding AN/I discussions here, both regarding the same topic area, he still does not appear to fully grasp the concerns raised regarding lack of verifiability, disregard for consensus, original research, and incivility. On that note, see below. --Sable232 (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Formal topic ban proposal
Carmaker1 shall be banned indefinitely from editing articles related to motor vehicles, broadly construed. The ban may be revisited after no less than nine months of routine and consistent productive, cooperative, and civil editing in another topic area, and clear understanding of and respect for Wikipedia policies and guidelines, have been demonstrated. --Sable232 (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:CIR, WP:OWNERSHIP and disruptive editing issues
- Catalyszczowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kante4 and I warned him not to put assist on club season articles per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_100#Assist_Stats_on_Premier_League_Team_pages_(Arsenal_2015-16 via user talk page yesterday but this user still put again without any reason and any reply [53] [54] Hhkohh (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Just now user uses non-English to reply on user talk page, but I do not know what they said Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Google translates the reply (from Indonesian) as "apus2 play just as good lo forehead, the cave if the data itself, the page caves created from 0 tired, playing lear wrote zzz". I'm not sure this helps. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm, when I did a Google translate, I got "just playing well as good as the forehead, I did the data myself, my page made from 0 tired, I just played zzz". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- It sounds like he's blaming lack of sleep for the quality of his edits?--WaltCip (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- He also reverts the deletion of Top 10 attendances which was discussed also and agreed to remove. Not sure what to do, do now want to go into an edit war. Kante4 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Before we discussed top 10 attendances issue in WT:FOOTY. I also invited the user in Talk:2018 Liga 1. But after we discussed top 10 attendances issue in WT:FOOTY, they still put after I deleted. Hhkohh (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'll translate it for you all, he said that "You just delete the data as you please. I did that data myself. I made that page from scratch, it's tiring, and you just delete it. Zzz." Wira rhea (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Before we discussed top 10 attendances issue in WT:FOOTY. I also invited the user in Talk:2018 Liga 1. But after we discussed top 10 attendances issue in WT:FOOTY, they still put after I deleted. Hhkohh (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- He also reverts the deletion of Top 10 attendances which was discussed also and agreed to remove. Not sure what to do, do now want to go into an edit war. Kante4 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- It sounds like he's blaming lack of sleep for the quality of his edits?--WaltCip (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Just now user uses non-English to reply on user talk page, but I do not know what they said Hhkohh (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Is Catalyszczowski happy to go to edit warring and do disruptive edits against consensus? I am afraid of, so I proposed a WP:CIR block for Catalyszczowski Hhkohh (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Kenanga.Phethai again
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Kenanga.Phethai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
After I initially reported them here, resulting in a block by Liz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), they have continued the same behavior less than a day after the block's expiration. They seem to be only editing on mobile, which is probably why they aren't really receiving talk page messages.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I think this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE, as it is a vandalism only account. Not only the user added incorrect information at cyclone intensity, the user also changed names of tropical cyclones. INeedSupport(Care free to give me support?) 18:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Scott Burley: What do you think about this? INeedSupport(Care free to give me support?) 19:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree, I think the user is probably well-meaning but WP:CLUELESS. The first block was a bit short, so hopefully this gets their attention. I would support an indef block if this continues. -- Scott (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- I like to start with short, limited blocks. Sometimes all you have to do is stop the editor and get them to reconsider their editing strategy. If they continue with disruptive editing, they can always receive a longer block. I'm troubled by admins who go from 0>60 with a starting block of indefinite length and I do not have that philosophy about blocking. Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Scott Burley: @Liz: It's fine. You know more than me. -INeedSupport- (Time for Christmas!) 15:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I like to start with short, limited blocks. Sometimes all you have to do is stop the editor and get them to reconsider their editing strategy. If they continue with disruptive editing, they can always receive a longer block. I'm troubled by admins who go from 0>60 with a starting block of indefinite length and I do not have that philosophy about blocking. Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree, I think the user is probably well-meaning but WP:CLUELESS. The first block was a bit short, so hopefully this gets their attention. I would support an indef block if this continues. -- Scott (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Incident reported by M1nhm
I created hawza Najaf article. In other hands, there is some redirect(Najaf seminary, Hawza 'Ilmiyya Najaf) connected to hawza article but they are more appropriate to my articl. Please help me that redirects to be in hawza article would be linked to my one.M1nhm (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Someone needs to take a look at this user's contributions. While I see no reason to doubt good intent, the level of competence in the English language shown by M1nhm appears to me to be insufficient to contribute usefully to en.wp. See for example this paragraph from Network of agents (Wikalah): "The meaning of word wikalah that mean of ours is wikalah in Arabic means to let someone perform duties on behalf of someone especially when someone cannot accomplish his duties by himself. In the other hands, wikalah in terms of jurisprudence is someone choose someone else as his agent who that someone has the right to interfere in Decision making and approving a Duty or to be the second person who can interfere in His affairs. After the above definition, it can be seen that the wikalah are used when a person is unable to perform his duties by himself for reasons such as position and necessities and Imamas could not communicate with Shia by direct and usual ways." 86.147.97.63 (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
User:M1nhm writing incomprehensible articles
M1nhm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has written several articles (Network of agents (Wikalah), Hawza Najaf, Abdol Hossein Dastgheib) which show an immense amount of hard work and thought. Unfortunately a lot of the writing is difficult, if not impossible, to understand. An excerpt from the former reads:
"The meaning of word wikalah that mean of ours is wikalah in Arabic means to let someone perform duties on behalf of someone especially when someone cannot accomplish his duties by himself. In the other hands, wikalah in terms of jurisprudence is someone choose someone else as his agent who that someone has the right to interfere in Decision making and approving a Duty or to be the second person who can interfere in His affairs. After the above definition, it can be seen that the wikalah are used when a person is unable to perform his duties by himself for reasons such as position and necessities and Imamas could not communicate with Shia by direct and usual ways."
I think these articles require some heavy copy-editing, and I'm sure the intention is good. I am just concerned that the user's level of English might not be up to standard to edit the en Wikipedia. JZCL 18:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- I started to copy edit the Network of agents (Wikalah) one. It does need some heavy copy-editing, preferably by someone familiar with Arabic culture. He seems to be trying to paraphrase this source, but the source is coherent where the article is not. I'm glad to see he's paraphrasing and not copying, but it's losing meaning in the process. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
They also made an incomprehensible post on here yesterday, asking for help with changing some redirects. I think. Not sure if admin intervention is appropriate here as the balance of their contributions appear to be positive. -- Scott (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Certainly what they are trying to add is a net positive... I only feel that if they keep contributing in the way that they are currently doing that a very large amount of editors' time may be spent copy-editing and essentially translating what has been written. As I said above, the work all appears to be in good faith. But that is not equivalent to being a "net positive", especially if we have no idea what they are trying to say in the first place. JZCL 00:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps the editor can be asked -- or required -- to create articles in Draftspace and not in Articlespace, and that they not be moved into Articlespace until someone --a mentor? -- has had a chance to go over them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think if we go that route whoever mentors them should be familiar with the topics they are editing in. They mostly seem to be writing about Islamic and Arabic culture, history, and religion. Perhaps a relevant WikiProject could help. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think if we go that route whoever mentors them should be familiar with the topics they are editing in. They mostly seem to be writing about Islamic and Arabic culture, history, and religion. Perhaps a relevant WikiProject could help. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps the editor can be asked -- or required -- to create articles in Draftspace and not in Articlespace, and that they not be moved into Articlespace until someone --a mentor? -- has had a chance to go over them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that there is a clear issue with understanding of English language and mentorship would probably work if the user agrees to limit their editing for sometime. Shashank5988 (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- It looks like this editor does not speak English and is using Google Translate to make edits. I doubt that he understands just how poorly written his edits are. Unfortunately, there are only two options: have someone volunteer to be his full time copy editor or block him. --RAF910 (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm afraid the user's knowledge of English is far too poor. While the contributions certainly point to important missing information (e.g. the Najaf Seminary, arguably the most important in Shiism, previously only covered in a short section here), the amount of copy-editing required is just not worth it (and more than we could ever handle, with the current speed). Many sentences are just incomprehensible, requiring me to read through all the sources. The sources given are often too "primary" (such as Shia religious institutions), in somewhat better English, but very biased (presenting a religious view or "traditional" history). It's significantly easier to just start from a google translate of the corresponding Arabic or Persian article. It seems to me we can only recommend the user to edit their native language version. Tokenzero (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Unblock me
I want my mobile phone ip address unblocked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BlockList?wpTarget=2600%3A387%3A2%3A813%3A0%3A0%3A0%3Aae&limit=50&wpFormIdentifier=blocklist
Nantucketnoon (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Question: your mobile phone address is only blocked to anonymous accounts (i.e. IP editors). Since you're editing from an account, why does this matter? Black Kite (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Seems like this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE, considering today they attacked an innocent IP address in my area over good faith section removals. Affected pages are as follows:
- Alan Walker (music producer) – The IP removed a controversy section that the user added yesterday. The IP was correct in doing so, as controversy sections are generally supposed to be avoided according to the WP:NPOV policy. The user claimed in their revert today that the IP was a vandal for reverting their edit.
- Private military company – The IP removed the "in fiction" section for falling under WP:TRIVIA. "In fiction" is clearly just another fancy way of saying "in popular culture", which is what the guideline talks about. The user claims this is okay, but did not efficiently explain their reasoning.
Also, to counteract an argument they made at AIV against the IP, IP editors are not registered users. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where anyone can edit within policy and guidelines, registered or not. To claim deception here is most likely an act of bad faith and most likely a WP:NOTHERE case. 66.87.148.199 (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- "Having a different interpretation of policies or guidelines" (even if the interpretation is incorrect) is not the same thing as "not being here to write an encyclopedia". Why haven't you discussed this with the user before taking it to ANI? I do see some questionable edits from that account, but nothing that seems particularly egregious, and their talk page is a redlink - nobody has warned them or tried to engage in conversation with them. You haven't even notified them of this thread, as is required. --bonadea contributions talk 08:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- User has been notified of this thread. 66.87.148.199 (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Some odd behavior from this account (esp. claiming that an IP is actually a logged in user name--not technically possible with the MediaWiki software), but I agree with the above response. Bringing this to ANI without warning or even contacting the user was premature. -- Scott (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Does anyone know what happened here [55]. It seems a very long time to be a edit conflict unless the editor made the edit then failed to save or something. I noticed that it included a report from the reported IP. Nil Einne (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: Looks like the user saved an older revision of AIV over a newer revision. Similar to what happened to Aero Chord here: [56] 66.87.148.199 (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Does anyone know what happened here [55]. It seems a very long time to be a edit conflict unless the editor made the edit then failed to save or something. I noticed that it included a report from the reported IP. Nil Einne (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Continued disruptiveness by 68.193.153.95 / REDXSCORPION
- Archived discussion of the first ANI (17th October)
- And the repeated violation here (2nd Dec) (11 000 chars changed again)
- List of Nvidia graphics processing units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- 68.193.153.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- REDXSCORPION (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Yada yada, 1 and 1/2 months later this guy is back and reverts everything again back to the state of 17th Oct without any discussion. In the process fucking up the tables again and undoing all the fixes and additions in the meantime ( Eg. re-adding unsourced, rumors, which another user had to remove again(. But now they also made an account, which they randomly decide to use. Same shtick, same tone in their commit messages, same misunderstood "freedom of speech" / "i like my version more" justification in the commit message of the violation.
I'm sure this is not a valid complaint from my side in this ANI board here, and I'm definitely not "formal" enough, but I just wanna let you know that I already wasted enough hours of my life dealing with this moron and if you care about the state of this project and the mix of people involved you should probably do something against these toxic elements. It was a mistake to just ban this guy for just 3 days, when it was clear they're not gonna change or are compatible with teamwork.
To revert their edits will be a long process again, as you can't easily revert multiple spaced-apart commits and it's all tables, so the editing will be a confusing pain of tabs and dashes. I did this work and had this pointless fight once, but if I need to constantly fight windmills here, then no thanks. It's actually amazing, you can look at basically any other article about GPUs or CPUs and all have nice tidy tables, just these 3 tables on the mentioned article are awful as they edit there. Seriously, do look it up, eg the List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units or any tables in the respective product articles linked in the "lists of X".
For information, just read the cited 1st ANI, the IP's contribs (messages), especially the insane and insulting rants they left, and their and especially my talk page. I'm sure there's other stuff I forgot, because it was some time ago, but I just don't want to waste more time digging into this pitiful stuff again. There's also some more info in the history of the article's Talk page, but I later removed this section as per suggestion in the 1st ANI as it was too focused on this guy for an article talk page.
@Caknuck:, you wanted to be notified as noted in the first ANI. @TurboSonic:, maybe you care too. And maybe @Yamla:, as they semi-protected the page for a while.
Happy holidays.
-- IonPike (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Huh that's very interesting I would like to ask though why did you wait until now to tells us? But that's besides the point, if I was an admin I would just block him from editing List of Nvidia graphics processing units since it seems he only edits that page only, and if he continues on other Wikipedia pages I would just block his IP and/or account for either an extended period of time or forever, but that's just what I would do since I don't really what admins would actually do. TurboSonic (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
User: RapGod2X
Disruptive editting at Camila Cabello. User RapGod2X keeps adding photo that does not appear to have the correct license. Even if it does, the previous photo is better quality, as the new photo was screen capped from YouTube. User does not appear to want to discuss issue and has re-instated their edits with warnings such as "you don't want to get into this". †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 00:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Just adding this for ease of other editors: RapGod2X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) JZCL 00:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
You say the user "does not appear to want to discuss issue" (sic): have you made any effort to discuss with them? Seems like a mild content dispute from my viewpoint with neither side (so far as I can see) attempting to communicate with the other. As for the warning, it's not ideal but I'd leave it as it's a one-off and come back if it becomes more frequent or more threatening. With all of that said, RapGod has violated 3RR by replacing the other image 4 times in the last 24 hrs, so technically a block is in order. JZCL 00:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I gave them a copyvio warning, and I've nominated the image for deletion at Commons, as it's a screencap from a YouTube video that is a copyvio in itself... Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Account blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Fieryflames. I have filed a report at COM:AN/B (perm), given the history of multiple copyvios and questionable uploads there. theinstantmatrix (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's Confirmed, for the record.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Account blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Fieryflames. I have filed a report at COM:AN/B (perm), given the history of multiple copyvios and questionable uploads there. theinstantmatrix (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Disruptive tag team doing bulk section deletions against numerous other editors
Can someone with a little more time to spare please take a look at these two:
- TheVicarsCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Morphenniel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
We have two editors, overlapping to blank large and important sections of articles as unsourced. They are happily edit-warring over other editors. They have been warned repeatedly, by several editors, for some time. The content being blanked is largely stuff that has been there for years, unchallenged, and mostly unchallengeable. Yes, per the dogma of WP:V et al there is a case for this needing to be fixed, but behaviour here has gone way into the disruptive. As we all know only too well, it is far easier to bulk blank content like this than it is for anyone to work to fix it. Also, I see zero effort to fix anything from either of these editors (their contribs are one long sea of red).
For Morphenniel in particular, this has now crossed over into personal stalking and hounding. They've gone down a list of articles I happened to edit yesterday and started blanking sections from them, whether I edited that section or not.
- British Rail Class 15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Severn Tunnel Junction railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Precipitation hardening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Chevaline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Field's metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
They also seem to hold some grudge against Belgians: "It must be deleted lest it be something that a teenager from Belgium added.", which is a little odd for someone editing some of these particular articles (where a particular teenager from Belgium did indeed work on them).
This disruption also passes the 'Blue Moon' test, when that rare planetary alignment takes place and Wtshymanski and I agree on anything.
This is sheer disruption, and it's block-worthy. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- A look at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/I B Wright/Archive / Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/I B Wright and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhtpbank/Archive wouldn't go amiss either. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Also [57] (the Wikipedia section and their activity with SPIs) Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I've been noticing Morphenniel doing these disruptive edits as well - and their nasty responses when asked to stop. The disruption is taking some bizarre forms - see Silver Star (Amtrak train) where another editor removed an utterly preposterous claim, and Morphenniel reverted with the summary "Prove it." I agree with Andy that the focus on railway electrification - and a sudden change from polite to hostile - reminds me a lot of I B Wright and Bhtpbank. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- When the primary reason for a revert has become the opportunity to annoy another editor, rather than any objective improvement in the article, then that's time it was stopped. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Holding on to un-sourced content is against all Wikipedia conventions. I have provided edit summaries for every article for which I have deleted un-sourced content. I refer you to the very first sentence of WP:PROVEIT - "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Morphenniel (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I refer you to WP:DISRUPTIVE. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Please elaborate. I refer you to WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. I have not engaged in the deletion of reliable sources, nor have I added content (or re-added following deletion) that was un-sourced. Your argument appears to lack any basis, nor is it substantiated. You are upset, but that it not a reason to run crying to the admins like a child running to its mummy. Your behavior here is un-founded on any of Wikipedia Policies, and is rejected. Grow up and start behaving like a mature adult. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and that means that articles must be thorough and be well-sourced. Perhaps you are the problem here? Maybe the admins should investigate you and Wtshymanski instead for re-inserting content that was un-sourced.
- Well I thought you'd only gone for WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #1, #3, #4, #5 & #6, but here you managed to score a #2 too, so well done, that's numberwang. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think it would be all too simple for me to find diff's that prove similar for you and Wtshymanski. let's be honest, Wtshymanski's normal editing behavior is typified by #4 and #5. - Morphenniel (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Morphenniel: I'm pretty close to blocking you for hounding - you've followed Andy to several articles that you've never edited before. Doug Weller talk 13:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think it would be all too simple for me to find diff's that prove similar for you and Wtshymanski. let's be honest, Wtshymanski's normal editing behavior is typified by #4 and #5. - Morphenniel (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well I thought you'd only gone for WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #1, #3, #4, #5 & #6, but here you managed to score a #2 too, so well done, that's numberwang. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Please elaborate. I refer you to WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. I have not engaged in the deletion of reliable sources, nor have I added content (or re-added following deletion) that was un-sourced. Your argument appears to lack any basis, nor is it substantiated. You are upset, but that it not a reason to run crying to the admins like a child running to its mummy. Your behavior here is un-founded on any of Wikipedia Policies, and is rejected. Grow up and start behaving like a mature adult. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and that means that articles must be thorough and be well-sourced. Perhaps you are the problem here? Maybe the admins should investigate you and Wtshymanski instead for re-inserting content that was un-sourced.
"Holding on to un-sourced content is against all Wikipedia conventions."
Untrue. Why else do we have {{citation needed}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)- You people really ought to read, inwardly digest and start to understand Wikipedia Policies. As a starter for ten, I refer you to WP:BURDEN - "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." - Morphenniel (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- WP:VERIFY says: "
When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[5] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.
" - That is way different than removing content only because it is not sourced. Rzvas (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- WP:VERIFY says: "
- You people really ought to read, inwardly digest and start to understand Wikipedia Policies. As a starter for ten, I refer you to WP:BURDEN - "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." - Morphenniel (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I refer you to WP:DISRUPTIVE. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Holding on to un-sourced content is against all Wikipedia conventions. I have provided edit summaries for every article for which I have deleted un-sourced content. I refer you to the very first sentence of WP:PROVEIT - "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Morphenniel (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- When the primary reason for a revert has become the opportunity to annoy another editor, rather than any objective improvement in the article, then that's time it was stopped. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Some of these articles are on my watch list so I noticed this sudden eruption of what seem to be WP:POINTy edits consisting of (rapidly) deleting whole sections over many articles. Start seems to have been Alternator 13:04, 10 November 2018 and has gone on to TheVicarsCat and Morphenniel tag team deleting against Wtshymanski and Andy Dingley at that article, Railway electrification system, Lithium battery. Morphenniel's 21:02, 20 December 2018 to 00:25, 21 December 2018 edits (20 edits in a row) shows an obvious retaliation/HOUND where he/she executed rapid mass deletion edits (sometimes one a minute) in articles that seem to have no relation except every single one was previously edited by Wtshymanski or Andy Dingley. Looks like time to hand out some blocks. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment It does not matter if something has been on the 'pedia from day 1, if it's uncited it is deletable: to say otherwise goes against The Second Pillar.
Looking at the examples above... in Chevaline, the deleted content had been tagged as an Unreferenced section since August 2008. That's over ten years. Likewise, Precipitation hardening has had a Refimprove tag since February 2010. If those aren't valid deletions, whatever would be?
I can't speak to the alleged hounding or of the other actors involved in all of these accusations, but there should never be a challenge for removing unsourced content... no matter however long it has stood. Markvs88 (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming that this is related (and it's the weekend so I can't check) but I've just had two anon phone calls and a threat of physical violence. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
From my standpoint, this all started when an editor deleted a 'refimprove' tag, from the aticle Alternator despite the article being practically devoid of any referencing and without adding the references so requested. This was followed by a post on the article talk page where said editor referred to, what he called, 'shotgun tagging'. There followed a discussion (at Talk:Alternator#Shotgun tagging). Prior to this discussion, I have had no prior interaction with this editor. I also noticed that several other 'refimprove' tags at other articles were deleted by him/her as well without actually improving the referencing which is the reason for the articles that I targeted.
What became apparent from the discussion was that this editor dislikes all encompassing tags at the head of an article. On this point, I happen to concur as they rarely, if ever, precipitate any action. However, what also became apparent was that this editor somehow also believes that the text of the article should not contain in-line references either if there is a reference at the bottom of the article that covers the point (basically a 'shotgun reference' to hijack his allusion). He essentially said that: we don't need to tag every claim with 'a little blue number'. The problem with sections of articles devoid of in-line references is that it is quite impossible to determine what claims in the section are valid and referenced by which reference that happens to follow the article, or what is false and not referenced at all (which must fail the requirements of verifiability).
The sections deleted were sections wholly unsupported by references for lengthy periods of time so there is no evidence at all that they are even accurate. I regard them as legitimately deleted as other have noted above. They were not legitimately restored by others as WP:BURDEN unequivocally states that the restoring editor is responsible for providing the missing referencing. As I see it: the only way to remove unreferenced and inaccurate material (and there is a lot of it on Wikipedia) is to delete it. If the material is accurate then the restoring editor should have little difficulty providing the required supporting in-line reference. If a supporting reference is not forthcoming then it is reasonable to assume that it was inaccurate and correctly deleted. To provide context, the policy that I have been following clearly states:
All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. (WP:BURDEN - the very first line)
and
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. (WP:BURDEN - first sentence, third para)
Some of what I have deleted has been restored by a couple of editors (including the OP) without supplying the required references (in violation of WP:BURDEN. I shall hold off deleting it again for a few days pending any development and (authoritative) feedback here, but as I see it, if folks are not happy then it is the policy that is at fault and not I.
I had noticed that Morphenniel was treading on my heels, but beyond that I cannot comment other than to observe that he clearly is of the same opinion. TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- How do you feel about WP:OUTING and threatening phone calls? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- That sounds very much like you are making an allegation without a shred of supporting evidence. I have no way of knowing who you are beyond the fact that your screen persona is 'Andy Dingley' (which may, or may not, be your real name). I even had no way of even knowing which particular part of the planet you inhabit, until I just checked your user page. Where exactly do you allege that I have attempted to out you?
- Are you quite certain that you are not sleeping with someone else's wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend?
- But the real point is: why would I pursue such a move given that I have only reverted a single reversion of yours which was in violation of the above cited policy anyway? TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't believe that you have OUTed me, or threatened me. But Morphenniel did twice, and someone threatened me at home last night. I'm more interested in giving you a chance to either stand with Morphenniel over that, or to distance yourself from it. You seem to have chosen personal attacks and insinuation instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- If you don't believe it, then why did you make the allegation? I can't be held responsible for anything other editors do. I did not make any insinuation. I merely asked a question posing an explanation that is more likely than rather more serious allegation that you made, so this is just the pot calling the kettle black.
- I don't believe that you have OUTed me, or threatened me. But Morphenniel did twice, and someone threatened me at home last night. I'm more interested in giving you a chance to either stand with Morphenniel over that, or to distance yourself from it. You seem to have chosen personal attacks and insinuation instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- But the real point is: why would I pursue such a move given that I have only reverted a single reversion of yours which was in violation of the above cited policy anyway? TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- I also note that you resorted to allegations above of sock puppetry without providing a shred of evidence on that score either. Taken together that rather smacks of desperation. Checking up on policy on that matter: making sock allegations without evidence is considered to be a personal attack. But realistically, I'm not expecting a block for that any time soon. I further desperation, you have quoted several policies above. This is basically WP:WIKILAWYERING, because you have failed to comprehend both of them. TheVicarsCat (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- When it comes to personal attacks, given that my sole interaction with you was a single reversion of a revert that you had no right to make, it was you that fired the opening salvo (above). You can hardly complain when you get incoming in reply. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sockpuppetry. I haven't alleged this, as I consider it likely, but not as yet to a level where I would make such an allegation, mostly because I don't know who that sockmaster would be. If I get to such a point, I'll do so at the relevant SPI page. But would you please explain your indef block per WP:SCRUTINY - maybe @NeilN: could throw some light? As that's certainly an issue which overlaps into sockpuppeting. There's also the highly suspicious behaviour of Morphenniel, a newish editor who popped up editing the I B Wright SPI – it's always remarkable how such obscure pages are a magnet for (some) new editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- When it comes to personal attacks, given that my sole interaction with you was a single reversion of a revert that you had no right to make, it was you that fired the opening salvo (above). You can hardly complain when you get incoming in reply. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- No. You alleged it, very unambiguously. As for the exchange with NeilN that you referred to, the history is fully available for you to read for yourself. In case, you hadn't figured it out, I don't have an indef block as this (and every other post) demonstrates. Editing from an IP address and then registering an account to do something an IP cannot do, does not even remotely count as sockpuppetry. After all, every IP is encouraged to register an account if they chose to hang around. Also my IP address at the time is a matter of record if you bother to check my history as I suggested (so no scrutiny evasion either).
- But the one thing that you have still not done, is to explain how what I was doing (and apparently what Morphenniel was doing as well) is in any way in violation of the policies that I have quoted above (or don't you understand those either). TheVicarsCat (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC) TheVicarsCat (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Can someone explain why TheVickersCat hasn't been blocked yet for the rather vile personal attack above - i.e. the insinuation of adultery? Such comments are completely unacceptable.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- But that standard, Andy Dingley should receive a longer block for the more serious allegation of making threats of violence. Or are you applying double standards here along with your inability to spell? TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm just going to block anyone in this thread who makes personal attacks or aspersions from this point onward. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think we are close to being finished here. Can we agree that the editor that initiated this thread is culpable, and should be blocked for severely disruptive behavior, and making claims that are not aligned with Wikipedia policies, but his wrongful interpretation of them. This same editor has also been un-civil and raised spurious (but unproven) claims about sock-puppetry. A short term block of six months would appear to be appropriate, and give this editor time to consider their future on this encyclopedia. Morphenniel (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- We certainly can't agree to that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- No, Morphenniel. Put the shovel down and stop digging your hole deeper. Dubious information can be removed but inline citations (while good practice) are not strictly necessary. You should have a good faith basis to think information is dodgy before you remove it, something more than merely lacking an inline citation. You’ve been pointy and my block finger is getting itchy. Do you agree to take a hint? Jehochman Talk 02:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think we are close to being finished here. Can we agree that the editor that initiated this thread is culpable, and should be blocked for severely disruptive behavior, and making claims that are not aligned with Wikipedia policies, but his wrongful interpretation of them. This same editor has also been un-civil and raised spurious (but unproven) claims about sock-puppetry. A short term block of six months would appear to be appropriate, and give this editor time to consider their future on this encyclopedia. Morphenniel (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
After reviewing this discussion and the relevant talk pages, I have given Morphenniel a 72 hour block for disruptive editing. TheVicarsCat is warned to abandon similar behavior, which will allow them to avoid a block. Editors who engage in a spree of deleting unreferenced paragraphs without making any effort to search for references and improve the referencing of articles are not here to build the encyclopedia. This behavior is especially disruptive if it targets the work of specific other editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, that is very welcome. If someone wants to focus on improving a particular article they might study it and conclude that certain paragraphs should be removed. However, removing text because I can is disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- You are welcome, Johnuniq. I took a look at one of the articles that had been gutted, Field's metal. This is a fascinating alloy and I was easily able to expand the article and add several references. Any editor more knowledgeable about metallurgy than I can easily expand this article much more. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: As I indicated above, I will accept and abide by the guidance provided, even though it still is not clear how I have misinterpreted the policy elements that I quoted.
- You are welcome, Johnuniq. I took a look at one of the articles that had been gutted, Field's metal. This is a fascinating alloy and I was easily able to expand the article and add several references. Any editor more knowledgeable about metallurgy than I can easily expand this article much more. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I would offer the observation that the article to which you added references (Field's metal), has now unarguably been improved. This would not have been the case had Morphenniel not initially deleted the material that he did. I would argue that he was at least instrumental in improving that article. This illustrates admirably, that deleting material and forcing restorers to cite it does ultimately result in an improvement which would appear to be the objective of the policies given (my €0.02 worth).
- Can we also settle one issue. Is it therefore correct and acceptable to add a {{noreferences}} or {{refimprove}} tag to the head of any article that has either no references or whole sections with no in-line references (respectively). For my part, this is where this started, one editor removing such tags on under-referenced articles claiming they were unnecessary (though also claiming that references themselves were unnecessary). TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's open to any editor to work to improve articles by improving their sourcing. I see very little of this from either of you.
- It's possible to work to improve articles (even by highlighting their shortcomings) without pissing off all other editors involved. In particular, it is highly discouraging for other editors to work to improve articles when they're being bulk reverted against. WP:POLICY edits can still be against WP:DISRUPTIVE. That is why this was raised here.
- The NHS grew out of World War II. But that still doesn't excuse Pearl Harbour. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Don’t just bumble around slapping warning templates on articles. This would be obnoxious. Try to improve the articles by looking for references. If you find through your work that the information is wrong, feel free to remove it. Explain so that other editors understand that you looked. If despite your good faith efforts you are having trouble finding the right references (but haven’t found the info is wrong) then you can add a reference needed template. Best practice is to explain what you did on the talk page. TLDR: try to fix it yourself and if this proves too difficult, Mark it and ask other editors for help. Jehochman Talk 15:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Can we also settle one issue. Is it therefore correct and acceptable to add a {{noreferences}} or {{refimprove}} tag to the head of any article that has either no references or whole sections with no in-line references (respectively). For my part, this is where this started, one editor removing such tags on under-referenced articles claiming they were unnecessary (though also claiming that references themselves were unnecessary). TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
BobiusPrime
- BobiusPrime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Paul Joseph Watson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BobiusPrime is an inexperienced editor who is clearly from the political right. He is trying to assert his preferred presentation of the Jim Acosta video farrago into Paul Joseph Watson. His edits are tendentious. I have tried to explain the problem but he does not seem to want to know. He has characterised my edits as vandalism. Could another admin please try to explain the issues to him? Thanks. Guy (Help!) 00:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Use of the term "farrago" is curious, since you have claimed that this issue lacks confusion.--BobiusPrime (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does profound damage to itself when it assumes good faith on the part of a user who has told a provable lie. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with Alex Jones, supporter or not, knows that "I've not seen any 'fake' news distributed by [InfoWars]" is patently, bright-line false. This is one example of many from this user but instead of instantly getting the indefinite block such a statement deserves, we have to handhold them. This user is using plain lies to defend the media outlet owned by a man who once claimed tap water fluoridation turns frogs gay. BobiusPrime will never, ever contribute positively. Why try? 107.195.20.170 (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't believe tap water makes frogs turn gay, but it is irrelevant to the article.--BobiusPrime (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- No, but gay frogs do make tap water fun! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Okay. I have to agree with you there. --BobiusPrime (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- No, but gay frogs do make tap water fun! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't believe tap water makes frogs turn gay, but it is irrelevant to the article.--BobiusPrime (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Please be prepared to explain 1) explicit lies I have told, 2) what the "problem" is without condescension assuming knowledge you do not possess, and 3)non-circular proof the Acosta video was "doctored." My postings are there for all to read. Nothing said to me by this user can be remotely interpreted as positive tutelage. His comments associated to edits should demonstrate this. I have no intention of stalking this user to his other work, but I would suggest other administrators audit a cross-section of his work to determine if the negative interaction is systemic. --BobiusPrime (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's not. He does, however, have a fairly low tolerance for WP:FRINGE idiocy. So do I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- So it's kept very localized? You may consider the subject of the article as "fringe," but that does not justify targeted perversion of an informational article. --BobiusPrime (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't about "proof" — it's about reliable sources. If there is a consensus among mainstream reliable sources that the video was doctored, then we say so — and if that consensus is so overwhelming as to be essentially unanimous, then we will state facts as facts. In this case, there is clear and overwhelming consensus among reliable sources that the video clip was doctored; that is to say, edited in a misleading way. That you or anyone else disagrees with that is irrelevant except insofar as it might be worthy of mention that someone disagrees with the fact. However, apparently, the only source you can find which disagrees is an opinion piece in a partisan right-wing news outlet; it might not have sufficient weight to merit mention. That's a question for the talk page, though. Bottom line: Your personal opinion that there is not "proof the video was doctored" is not a reason for us to change anything about the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- That is profound. It reminds me of Bush/Gore presidential race. One reporter described Cheney as having "gravitas." The description was parroted by nearly every news outlet. By the standard you described, Cheney absolutely has gravitas. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, but apparently I am expected to in the Wikipedia you describe. In addition, I don't believe you read up on the citations. I don't believe NBC is generally considered a partisan right-wing news outlet. --BobiusPrime (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- The requirement that articles verifiably present what is published in reliable sources in a manner proportional to the prominence of each viewpoint in those source is foundational to what we do on the encyclopedia.
- You have found one source which states that it may not have been intentionally doctored, but inadvertently modified in a misleading manner. That one source is interesting. It may have sufficient weight to justify including that as a dissenting view. However, there also appears to be an overwhelming number of sources that do view the modification as intentional, and that does appear to be the mainstream POV we have to give the most weight to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I truly appreciate your response. You seem interested in an actual discussion of the matter. As far as the overall article, I expected more of an academic standard to prevail. A "source" that purports to know as fact that which is in the mind of a person they do not know cannot reasonably be considered "reliable." Without any proof, the use of the subjective term "doctored" is inherently opinion, and I attempted to present it as such. Point and counterpoint were offered in the paragraph, leaving it to the reader (rather than an admittedly biased editor) to decide. I admit that is no longer a fashionable journalistic standard, but should be in a project such as Wikipedia that aims to establish a meaningful record of the human experience. Let me ask you this.. if you were personally and legally liable for the veracity of this article, would you allow "doctored" to be presented as truth or fact? Would you stake your professional reputation on it? If you were called to task and accused of libel, could you defend the use of "doctored?" This is hypothetical, so forget Wiki jargon. --BobiusPrime (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- We don't have to guess. Literally thousands of other outlets have published these statements. Has the person in question sued any of those outlets? (The answer, of course, is no.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I truly appreciate your response. You seem interested in an actual discussion of the matter. As far as the overall article, I expected more of an academic standard to prevail. A "source" that purports to know as fact that which is in the mind of a person they do not know cannot reasonably be considered "reliable." Without any proof, the use of the subjective term "doctored" is inherently opinion, and I attempted to present it as such. Point and counterpoint were offered in the paragraph, leaving it to the reader (rather than an admittedly biased editor) to decide. I admit that is no longer a fashionable journalistic standard, but should be in a project such as Wikipedia that aims to establish a meaningful record of the human experience. Let me ask you this.. if you were personally and legally liable for the veracity of this article, would you allow "doctored" to be presented as truth or fact? Would you stake your professional reputation on it? If you were called to task and accused of libel, could you defend the use of "doctored?" This is hypothetical, so forget Wiki jargon. --BobiusPrime (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- That is profound. It reminds me of Bush/Gore presidential race. One reporter described Cheney as having "gravitas." The description was parroted by nearly every news outlet. By the standard you described, Cheney absolutely has gravitas. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, but apparently I am expected to in the Wikipedia you describe. In addition, I don't believe you read up on the citations. I don't believe NBC is generally considered a partisan right-wing news outlet. --BobiusPrime (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
As has been pointed out, I am fairly new to Wikipedia. So, Guy, is there a protocol for random admins to appear and comment, or do I wait for a select few that you summon? I am hoping for a wide readership. --BobiusPrime (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Guy is not commenting here as a "random admin", BobiusPrime, since he's involved with the article (=he has edited it). Admins discuss a particular article, in this case Paul Joseph Watson, either as editors, as Guy and Doug Weller do, or as an admin, as I do. Guy and Doug won't take admin action against you, at least not in connection with that article. See WP:INVOLVED. Bishonen | talk 17:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC).
- You do nothing to attract partisans of your point of view to this report, and neither does Guy. That would be a violation of WP:CANVASSING, which is not allowed. This page is highly trafficked and reports posted here frequently attract a great deal of attention, not only from admins, but from rank-and-file editors such as myself. So you're likely to get a "wide readership", but, you should be warned, it's extremely unlikely that you're going to get a great deal of support for your position. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ken. If the discussion is kept civil, I don't mind defending my position. I am first to admit that I do not know everything, but I try to be a learned gay frog ;-) --BobiusPrime (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well, here's the problem with that: WP:ANI (i.e. this page) does not deal with content disputes, so if you're thinking that you will be defending your position about that here, you're mistaken. Discussions about content take place on the article talk page, as Bishonen told you earlier on your talk page. Because administrators have no special authority to deal with content, they do not settle content disputes. What this page is about is dealing with behavioral problems. Guy has noted what he believes to be some behavioral issues on your part, which is why he brought the problem here. In particular, he mentions WP:tendentious editing and your mischaracterization of his edits as WP:vandalism -- which I hope you now understand after Bishonen's note to you is not the case. So if you're "defending" anything, it'll be your editing behavior, not the content of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Understood. I do believe my subsequent posting has heeded Bishonen's advice in that commentary has centered on content.--BobiusPrime (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not so in your latest contribution to Talk:Paul Joseph Watson, [58] in which you refer to Guy's "open contempt for the subject matter" being "on full display." That's no personal attacks material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- That is critical of content. Please don't try to needlessly inflame the discussion. --BobiusPrime (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- So, asking that an editor follow Wikipedia's poliicies and procedures is now to be considered to be "gaslighting" [59] and "needlessly inflaming the discussion." You've been told, repeatedly now, what is expected of you, and you continue to attempt to deflect any criticism of your behavior onto others. Apparently it was all Guy's fault, and now it's mine as well, and you are totally blameless.Fortunately, other editors, including myself, seem to have been able to resolve the substantive issue via consensus discussion on the article talk page, without recourse to personal attacks and ad hominems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- That is critical of content. Please don't try to needlessly inflame the discussion. --BobiusPrime (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Not so in your latest contribution to Talk:Paul Joseph Watson, [58] in which you refer to Guy's "open contempt for the subject matter" being "on full display." That's no personal attacks material. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Understood. I do believe my subsequent posting has heeded Bishonen's advice in that commentary has centered on content.--BobiusPrime (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well, here's the problem with that: WP:ANI (i.e. this page) does not deal with content disputes, so if you're thinking that you will be defending your position about that here, you're mistaken. Discussions about content take place on the article talk page, as Bishonen told you earlier on your talk page. Because administrators have no special authority to deal with content, they do not settle content disputes. What this page is about is dealing with behavioral problems. Guy has noted what he believes to be some behavioral issues on your part, which is why he brought the problem here. In particular, he mentions WP:tendentious editing and your mischaracterization of his edits as WP:vandalism -- which I hope you now understand after Bishonen's note to you is not the case. So if you're "defending" anything, it'll be your editing behavior, not the content of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ken. If the discussion is kept civil, I don't mind defending my position. I am first to admit that I do not know everything, but I try to be a learned gay frog ;-) --BobiusPrime (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
IP makes bullshit speedy nominations
99.53.112.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Has been previously blocked. I removed one of the nominations, they reverted me and warned me claiming I removed the template from the article I created (which I did not). [60] Could we urgently stop this activity please. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Those articles were just way too short, so I had to tag them. If you disagree with my tags, you are supposed to bring it to the talkpage. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I am just trying to help, so I do not appreciate these accusations of trolling which I saw in the edit summaries. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- You clearly don't understand WP:CSD#A1. Wayman, Missouri, being a ghost town in Missouri clearly has "sufficient context to identify the subject". Favonian (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I've made a comment at your talk page. You're not using CSD/A1 correctly, so please stop. The correct way to nominate articles for deletion if you feel they have no notability is WP:PROD, but note that geographical settlements are almost always notable. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I see what you all are saying, but articles that are as short as those that I tagged do not belong here. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I really would have appreciated it if you all spoke to me on my talk page before brining this here, which will prove to be a waste of everyone's time. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- You have been previously blocked for disruptive editing, and I do not see any reason you should not be blocked again for a longer duration. In fact, I would already have blocked you if I were not involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Now we are talking about blocks? I am trying to help, there is no need to block. 2602:306:3357:BA0:7CE5:B281:9B7A:D029 (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- (ec) You may also want to check what our policies say about edit-warring over a CSD template with an administrator who declined the speedy.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any need for blocks here as long as the IP editor (a) understands that they were doing wrong and (b) doesn't repeat what they were doing with the CSD tags. Preventative, not punitive. Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Can we de-escalate this, please? The policy has been called to the IP's attention, and it's clear that they were editing in good faith, though incorrectly. If it continues, then we can worry about whether blocking is needed or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- You have been previously blocked for disruptive editing, and I do not see any reason you should not be blocked again for a longer duration. In fact, I would already have blocked you if I were not involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I really would have appreciated it if you all spoke to me on my talk page before brining this here, which will prove to be a waste of everyone's time. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Personal attack by Calton
On Talk:Hepatitis C vaccine, Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted a rhetorical question attack by stating "You know, lying about what I wrote. Is English your first language?" WP:NPA states to "Comment on content, not on the contributor." 108.173.18.28 (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- A complaint about Ruslik0 by one of the related Alberta IPs was rejected at AN3 a couple of days ago, and I've semi-protected the article to force discussion after a slow edit-war on the part of the Alberta IPs to include promotionally-tinged material about very preliminary research at the University of Alberta, sourced only to the university, with edit summaries like "do not revert." They've finally gotten around to using the talkpage. This is the second forum they've approached. Having been challenged by three editors, a better strategy might be to reduce the bluster and show, using prominent sources independent of the university, that this is the breakthrough they're claiming. Bluster isn't a substitute for independent sourcing. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- That's a personal attack now? Nonsense. Read the context. Bishonen | talk 20:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC).
- The IPs are clearly POV-pushing, and are probably people somehow affiliated with the University of Alberta. My thoughts from the IP's willful misunderstanding of Calton wouldn't have been
Is English your first language?
, but it's certainly not a comment that Calton should be sanctioned for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
IP adding the same external link to dozens of articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 158.182.30.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This IP editor has been adding the same link to some Hong Kong Baptist University Website online speech collection to dozens of articles on various speeches and addresses. This is the only activity this IP has undertaken. It may be in good faith, but in most cases the link is entirely unhelpful and unnecessary, as it doesn't point directly to any specific speech and most of these articles already have external links to the texts of the speeches from much better resources, like U.S. presidential libraries. I've explained as much in the edit summary of two dozen or so reverts I made, and I posted an explanation on their talk page. Peaceray did the same before me. The IP has since continued to add the same link to more articles. Advice and assistance would be appreciated. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Rollback'd—but they seem to have gotten the point. El_C 08:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- That link they posted is in fact a very good resource - but not for the articles they posted it to. --bonadea contributions talk 11:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Please block 189.155.194.146
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- 189.155.194.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi, please block this IP editor for this personal attack on my friend Oshwah. Personal attacks are prohibited on Wikipedia. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Posting same ungrammatical misspelled message on multiple user talk pages here valereee (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Already blocked by Euryalus--Ymblanter (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning in the page R160
The photo shows that an unrefurbished R160 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iswjy1mcb (talk • contribs) 12:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know what triggered ClueBot, but your edit is clearly unsourced WP:OR, since nothing in the image's file information identifies it as being "unrefurbished", just "unusally empty". Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
DynamoDegsy's use of AWB
I recently noticed that DynamoDegsy had made four AWB edits which refactor user's comments and DYK archives: [61][62][63][64]. I reverted these and brought it up with the user. They left me a snarky reply: "I've made over 150,000 edits and you're "concerned to see these four edits you made with AWB", four easily rectified edits… mmm.
" Indeed the fact that the user has made over 150,000 edits is precisely my concern, because these four edits are part of a larger pattern. They reverted three of their own edits (123) but missed the vast majority of them; I started to undo them but there are too many for me to deal with ([65][66][67][68][69][70][71] etc.).
There could potentially be thousands of these violations; I only managed to get through some of the edits they made in a 10 minute period. The user shows no signs of regret or of wishing to fix their mistakes or discontinuing these actions in future. I notice that other issues with DynamoDegsy's AWB use (or repetitive bot-like edits) on their talk page in 2018 alone have been brought up by Theanonymousentry (here), Nthep (here), Jessicapierce (here and here), Mikeblas (here), Jonesey95 (here and here)
Hence, I am proposing that DynamoDegsy should have AWB access withdrawn. They should also be monitored in future for bot-like edits which violate obvious principles of the site e.g. don't alter what other users said. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 12:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- What's this business of changing peoples' comments on talk pages? Shouldn't that be off limits in any case, with or without AWB? If that just "slipped through" while updating links on mainspace pages, it would indeed indicate that AWB is in unsafe hands here. If it was done deliberately, well... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- When making the tens of thousands of of constructive edits within AWB, the changes are being made to citations, talk pages, etc. are not always immediately obvious, or it's too late, as I've inadvertently pressed the save button, but I believe that the non-preferable changes detailed above by Bilorv, have always been remedied by myself in a timely manner (hence the snark). However, could someone please point me towards a AWB setting that prevent these non-preferable changes? DynamoDegsy (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- This is nonsense, you have not been remedying the changes in a timely manner. I've found 42 instances of you refactoring other users' comments, or altering DYK archives, going back to 18 December alone (that's more than 10 bad edits per day and you've been editing for a decade!). I alerted you to this problem and you denied that there was one, implying the 4 edits were isolated incidents while sneakily undoing just 3 of the problem edits yourself. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- If you press the save button accidentally then obviously, you need to go to your user contributions and undo the edit. The AWB setting that you're looking for is called "human oversight" and it's not possible to have it in use when you're making an edit every 3 seconds, such as 2:03 on 20 December (a minute in which you made 18 errors in 19 edits). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- DynamoDegsy, please revert your errant edits, many of which are still current(1 2 – cosmetic AWB edit in violation of AWB rule 4, 3, 4. 5, 6, 7, etc.), and then post here when you have done so. That's what any reasonable editor should do when alerted to errors that he or she has made. Thank you in advance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- "When making the tens of thousands of of constructive edits within AWB, the changes are being made to citations, talk pages, etc. are not always immediately obvious, or it's too late, as I've inadvertently pressed the save button" - Then I suggest you read WP:AWBRULES. Number 1 is quite clear - "You are responsible for every edit made". Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- DynamoDegsy, please revert your errant edits, many of which are still current(1 2 – cosmetic AWB edit in violation of AWB rule 4, 3, 4. 5, 6, 7, etc.), and then post here when you have done so. That's what any reasonable editor should do when alerted to errors that he or she has made. Thank you in advance. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- @DynamoDegsy: You are responsible for all edits you have made. Reading your explanations here, I would recommend that you should voluntarily agree to withdraw from AWB otherwise others would be too quick with putting you under a topic ban from entire semi-automated editing. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- I've removed Dynamo's AWB access. This shows the problematic edits in non-mainspace (almost all not remedied by Dynamo). One-off mistakes that are corrected quickly is fine, but 20 edits in a row to talk namespaces and an unwillingness to recognize a problem or correct it after being asked is incompatible with AWB access. Not only that, their recent mainspace AWB edits in large part consists of either edits that are clearly not constructive (and these were done in en masse - they weren't one off), whitespace changes (both violations of WP:AWBRULES#4, which they've been warned before about). Per their talk page, in the past through AWB they've repeatedly broken pages through breaking references over months despite repeated warnings. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Also, anyone more familiar with rugby want to check their edits to change "rugby player" to "professional rugby league footballer"? It is possible that the Danny McMaster in this edit was a professional rather than semi-professional or other footballer but I doubt DynamoDegsy is checking to see if the change is correct. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm a rugby fan and I can tell you that rarely (if ever) are rugby players referred to as "footballers". This is an incorrect and irregular change which has not been agreed at either WP:RU or WP:RL so these should also be reverted. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well, they've made hundreds to thousands of those edits so that's another issue; + introductions of awkward sentences and it seems that most of their AWB edits need reversion (and these edits made in the thousands also seem unecessary to me) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Good removal of tools. Clear case of WP:IDHT at best. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oohhh… I love a good pile-on… I am aware that i'm responsible for every edit made (all 150,000 of them), and as far as I'm aware I have always remedied the small number (0.00000125%) accidental edits I have made, whether AWB or manual, but not necessarily within a time-frame that is held only in someone's head. Rugby is a code of football, and hence the players of both codes are footballers, and this could not be agreed upon at WP:RL, as things are rarely agreed upon at WP:RL because there are so few active editors, none of whom seem to agree on much. Just because a rugby league footballer played for a country, e.g. Tonga, doesn't make him Tongan (because of Grandparent rule), and so to describe the "Tonga national rugby league team" as "His Country" is incorrect. Without understanding the individual footballers personal finances, it is impossible to know whether a rugby footballer is a professional, or a semi-professional, as even if the club itself is only a semi-professional. this may be the individuals only source of income, and from a rugby league perspective, being paid to play -the definition of professional sport - is/was a key differentiation between it and rugby union. Because it appears that no-one was able to identify the usage of the deprecated "Nickname" field in the "Rugby League infobox", I have been using AWB to reset the formatting of this field, and then look for alphanumeric entries in the field, manually transferring the resultant information to the main body of the article from where references can then be sought. I have prefixed Super League with European" as it is a European competition, yet there were a large number of instances where it had been prefixed with "English", "England's", "British", "United Kingdom's", "UK", "UK's", etc. and so I believe the prefix of "European" was accurate and would deter future mis-edits. Had the opening comment by Bilorv assumed "Good Faith", rather than being threatening (actually admitted to in the second paragraph), I may have been less "snarky", but it was always my intention remedy the accidental edits, and as far as I believe it is now completed. DynamoDegsy (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think you may have missed my point. Yes rugby may have come out of football but it is rarely called "rugby football" in common parlance. Indeed, if you watch any rugby broadcast you'll notice that the people who play rugby are always referred to as "rugby players" rather than "footballers". So it is fairly disingenuous to call them "footballers" on wikipedia. Besides just because it couldn't be agreed to change consensus at RL, that does not give you a licence to go against the established consensus and change it unilaterally using the tools. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oohhh… I love a good pile-on… I am aware that i'm responsible for every edit made (all 150,000 of them), and as far as I'm aware I have always remedied the small number (0.00000125%) accidental edits I have made, whether AWB or manual, but not necessarily within a time-frame that is held only in someone's head. Rugby is a code of football, and hence the players of both codes are footballers, and this could not be agreed upon at WP:RL, as things are rarely agreed upon at WP:RL because there are so few active editors, none of whom seem to agree on much. Just because a rugby league footballer played for a country, e.g. Tonga, doesn't make him Tongan (because of Grandparent rule), and so to describe the "Tonga national rugby league team" as "His Country" is incorrect. Without understanding the individual footballers personal finances, it is impossible to know whether a rugby footballer is a professional, or a semi-professional, as even if the club itself is only a semi-professional. this may be the individuals only source of income, and from a rugby league perspective, being paid to play -the definition of professional sport - is/was a key differentiation between it and rugby union. Because it appears that no-one was able to identify the usage of the deprecated "Nickname" field in the "Rugby League infobox", I have been using AWB to reset the formatting of this field, and then look for alphanumeric entries in the field, manually transferring the resultant information to the main body of the article from where references can then be sought. I have prefixed Super League with European" as it is a European competition, yet there were a large number of instances where it had been prefixed with "English", "England's", "British", "United Kingdom's", "UK", "UK's", etc. and so I believe the prefix of "European" was accurate and would deter future mis-edits. Had the opening comment by Bilorv assumed "Good Faith", rather than being threatening (actually admitted to in the second paragraph), I may have been less "snarky", but it was always my intention remedy the accidental edits, and as far as I believe it is now completed. DynamoDegsy (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Good removal of tools. Clear case of WP:IDHT at best. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) If you are aware that consensus does not exist and could not be obtained, but persist in making the edits anyway, you are exhibiting dangerous ownership of a subject area. I'm afraid that you have made more than 0.00000125% of accidental edits, as that number would be 0.001875 mistakes per 150,000 edits. Rather, the number I have is dozens of mistakes in the past week, and potentially thousands of mistaken edits that you have been making en masse for years. You exhibit WP:IDHT in seeking to deny that you have been making large-scale inappropriate edits. My first instinct when I saw hundreds of careless edits was to find an admin who could block you for 48 hours, and then work out what was going on; I did assume good faith by bringing the issue up with you first, but your reply made it clear that you did not want to change your behaviour. Your nickname edits violate AWB rule 4, as many of them did not change the article's appearance, regardless of later intentions. Sentences such as "Sione Tongia is a Tongan rugby league player who represented Tonga national rugby league team" are redundant and grammatically incorrect—the diff pointed to says that the player is Tongan and hence it is his country, though I don't claim that this wording is ideal. I personally have no opinion on your "European Super League" changes. There are many other edits you have made which violate permitted use of AWB / bot-like editing e.g. the many hundreds of "rugby league football to rugby league football" (e.g. here) are inappropriate per the spirit of WP:NOTBROKEN. Thank you for reverting some of your edits. However, the "footballer" issue is not yet resolved; I would suggest that a discussion at WP:RU/WP:RL should take place and if "footballer" is deemed to be misleading, you should revert these edits as well. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- "European Super League" is wrong as well. It's simply not called that, because Super League is run by the RFL and is an English tournament that happens to allow teams from other countries to play. Last season Toronto Wolfpack were one point away from being promoted to the Super League - would DD then have AWB'd his way through every article changing it to "Northern Hemisphere Super League"? Or. as an example, would you go through every Premier League article renaming it the "British Premier League" because one Welsh club plays in it? No. Obviously not. Just Super League is perfectly fine. So all of those edits need to be rolled back. The "footballer" ones need to go back as well, and what's going on at Joe Lyman? (Joseph Lyman, also known by the nickname of "Joe"...) That's not a nickname, it's a diminutive. It should just be Joseph Lynam, known as "Joe", or even simply Joseph "Joe" Lynam. Indeed, a lot of articles with diminutive names don't even bother (see practically anyone called "Nick"). There are a lot of these, as well. There's a lot of rolling back to be done here. Black Kite (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Per MOS:HYPOCORISM, we don't list common diminuitive forms such as "Joe" for "Joseph", so yes these should be reverted. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 02:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Rugby football didn't come out of (association) football (codified 1863), rugby football was codified first (codified 1859), and players of all codes of football are football players, or more simply footballers, and as an aside at the rugby (league) matches I attend I regularly hear a "player" referred to as "footballer". It is typical Wikipedia bureaucracy that would let valid information be lost rather than temporary resetting the formatting of the deprecated "Nickname" field of the infobox. There does not appear to be a reference indicating that, e.g Sione Tongia is Tongan, only that the played for Tonga, so (due to the grandparent rule) the opening paragraph would be better as… "Sione Tongia is a rugby league footballer who represented Tonga". I was changing "rugby league player" to "rugby league footballer" using only "rugby league" categories, and many of the (most of the British) rugby league articles already used the term "rugby league footballer", so I wasn't unilaterally changing articles, I was harmonising the terminology for consistency. I just checked… I never suggested prefixing "Premier League" with "British" to become "British Premier League", but thanks for the suggestion, and thankfully there are very few rugby league footballers called "Nick". Changing "rugby league footballer" to "rugby league player", removing the "European" prefix from "Super League" and removing, e.g. ", also known by the nickname of "Joe"", can all be easily accomplished with AWB, but as I no longer have access to AWB, I suggest one of you stops beautifying your "User page" and gets on with it. Merry Fucking Christmas. DynamoDegsy (talk)
Block request of 86.190.161.152 (edit warring, block evasion, general disruption)
- 86.190.161.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
IP user 86.190.161.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is MFIreland. (MFIreland an indef blocked LTA disruptive editor with multiple confirmed user socks, and many dozens of blocked IP socks. The latter mainly in the same range/ISP pool). Repeated warnings from a half-dozen different editors (to this latest incarnation) have all gone unheeded and blanked. Which is unsurprising to anyone familiar with the history. And the disruption continues. Also unsurprising. Take, just by way of example, this type of POV warring or this behaviour. Both of which were reverted by varying editors, prior to reinsertion/attempted reinsertion. This is very far from the first time one of this user's IPs has been blocked. And, unfortunately, won't be the last. But please block anyway. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I also support blocking the IP because they are continuously disrupting the pages and provides no edit summaries of their reversions of other editors. This is another example. Wikiman5676 (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
User:DevonSoc Appears to be Vandalism-Only.
I came across DevonSoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this afternoon and it appears that every edit the user has is vandalism - usually changing the heights of basketball players or their positions. Nothing of value. I've reverted all that I can. Not sure of a better venue, but they're clearly not here for anything positive.--Jorm (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Please report at WP:AIV. General Ization Talk 03:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked for 1 week. Their article creations stopped me from indefblock. Materialscientist (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Charges of Nazism by an IP
I've got an editor who's determined to keep comparing me and/or the editors of Daniel (biblical figure) in general to the Nazis.
Here's the first diff (it's at the end of the long comment): [72].
Here's the first diff of me explaining to the user that WP:CIVIL doesn't allow that kind of thing: [73]
Here's the second diff of the user invoking Godwin's law, doubling down on the rhetoric quite a bit: [74]
Here's me warning the user a second time: [75].
Here's the user doing it again, directly using the word "Nazi" and, even worse, capitalizing the whole word: [76].
Here's me warning the user a third time: [77]
And … here's some more. It doesn't mention Nazis directly, but continues in the same vein as previous comments, alluding to various persecutors of Jews [78]. Alephb (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- This latest cryptic and potentially menacing comment is probably worth considering, though I can't quite make out what the user is up to with this one: [79].Alephb (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like an IP on a mission, I reverted the last set of changes with a request to use the talk page politely. These sort of things tend to blow over ....-----Snowded TALK 07:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Are his objections accurate? 2601:1C0:6D00:845:99C:7D5A:7EF6:4F2F (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Discuss that on the talk cygnis insignis 07:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Alephb, "dare to be a Daniel", the user have a point in the midst of that tract on systematic bias. Giving them a pass on this outburst would be a very generous (seasonal, and non-Nazi) thing to do and some refinements may emerge as a consequence. cygnis insignis 07:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Interestingly, the IP says in one of their edit summaries: "Non-Jews cannot decide for the Jews what Daniel is in Judaism." [80]. This is very similar to what they posted on Talk:Gab (social network):
Off hand, I'd say that this editor is more interested in polemically pushing their personal POVs than they are in calm discussion to determine "refinements". Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Individuals Outside the Platform Do Not Decide Who the Platform is For
Either remove any defamatory references suggesting that the platform is for "white supremacists", or place similar descriptions on Facebook, Twitter and Google stating that those platforms have been described as being for "far-left neo-liberals and democratic party operatives who infringe on the U.S. Constitution, discriminate against the majority based on gender and race, and violate the rights of the people to freedom of speech in order to push an extreme liberal political agenda and silence all of their opponents from any side of the political spectrum". If you need a reference for who says Twitter, Facebook, and Google exist to serve far-left interests, you can reference my quote on this page, but there are many, many others, the President of the United States being the most prominent. If you object to those descriptions and statements being placed on Facebook, Twitter, and Google's Wikipedia page, then I highly suggest you remove the following statement from Gab's Wikipedia page: "Gab has been described as a platform for white supremacists and the alt-right." Allowing all groups to exercise their freedom of speech does not ever equate to existing "for" one particular group that just happens to be one of the more controversial groups that is allowed to have and speak their views. Someone could say that Facebook is a platform for "the committee to make America 100% transgender", but obviously that would not be an appropriate, fair, or even lawful description for their Wikipedia page, would it? [81]
- Perhaps not, that is up to them and I have no expectations. I see a potentially divisive and noisy situation and recognise that refinements to content can often emerge, despite anyone pushing one POV or editing to make a point (which is worse, especially in regard to freeze peach), improvements via NPOV properly applied ought to make that content less susceptible to drive-by criticism. On other the other hand, indulging those actions is liable to cause blowback, but a block and perhaps this thread may energise any co-ordinated disruption. This is interesting, as you point out, and others may have developed effective counters; I am venturing in without a simple solution to what may be master-level trolling. Or maybe it is one of our cousins who is woefully misguided and only has a superficial point to prosecute, this is the mood I was in when the thread popped, disrupt the disruptors. cygnis insignis 09:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I have blocked the IP for 72 hours. Please let me know if the disruption resumes at that time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Template:db-a7 or something that it uses seems to have been vandalized: When the contest button is pressed, the preloaded text is:
- This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (this can be redirected to Nicolas Notovitch)
—teb728 t c 10:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Gaming for Extended confirmed userright
See talk page history of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P._Susheela&action=history Accesscrawl (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)