|
Welcome to the incident noticeboard | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
Noticeboard archives
Contents
- 1 Austrian Empire
- 2 User:Tobibln and their long-term pattern of unsourced changes
- 3 Edit war on the history of Haiti
- 4 Bias in Sporting Clube de Portugal by User:SportingCP1906
- 5 Yerevan Thermal Power Plant
- 6 Multiple duplicate pages created by Wj887
- 7 Page move and gaming the system
- 8 BLP violations at Mo Ansar
- 9 Security concern
- 10 More Dodgyness
- 11 User Randall Adhemar and IP 69.200.228.170 - Persistent addition of unsourced content and unwillingness to comply
- 12 Help with cleanup
- 13 User:BlackJack
- 14 Scottywong's FCOI
- 15 WillShowU
- 16 User:Jisteele
- 17 College Football Data Warehouse
- 18 Anjo-sozinho on Carlos I of Portugal and related articles
- 19 Pseudohistory edits by anon user
- 20 PA in Persian
- 21 "Traitor" in a BLP article
- 22 83.220.238.225
- 23 Midas02: Contested WP:RM closure followed by forum-shopping
- 24 Disruptive user evading infinite ban of former accounts User:WaterIsland resp. User:WaterIsland95
- 25 User:Eeekster is disruptively tagging my user-created photographs as no permission
- 26 MarkBernstein and insinuations
- 27 Caution review needed
- 28 Continued addition of unsourced birth place
- 29 IP editor - block evading comes back to taunt blocking admin
- 30 IP range on a revert edit war
Austrian Empire
Could I get a few more editors experienced in Austrian-Hungarian history to look at the edit war that has erupted in Austrian Empire and Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867)? I have full-protected both articles after extensive reverting by a number of people - there is a lively discussion on the talk page but it's being plagued by personal attacks thrown around, which makes it difficult for me to call a consensus. Note: I haven't pinged anybody to this discussion as I'm commenting on the overall conduct rather than any specific editor - please advise if I should Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Essentially Von Hebel is correct. Franz formally incorporated the Kingdom of Hungary into the Austrian Empire when Lazlo states he did (its a bit more complicated than that but Hebel's last post on the Kingdom of Hungary talkpage provides the most accurate explanation.) From what I can see the other parties are mis-construing the sources due to the sentence/syntax when translated. In context however Lazlo is unambiguous. The 'personal attacks' seem to be linked to this mis-understanding of the sources, which unfortunately is a common occurance when dealing with non-english RS'. There also seems to be a whiff of pro-Hungarian nationalism - including the KoH as part of the AE lessens it in some manner etc. If you want to call a consensus, you either need more eyes to interpret the source, or no-consensus it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- While I am not an expert on this subject matter, I will state for the record that I agree with Ritchie333's full protection of the articles (if that helps at all). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- User Only in death does duty end, I have to heavily oppose your early statement! I urge you to read the further discussion since Hebel's explanation and argumentation was disproved more times since then. I have to oppose also in the name of "other parties", becase we support to really insert uncut the source that Hebel does not support, he want's to spare the most important word from it. We have no problem with the interpretation - moreover Hungarian history experts joined the discussion - if you state that "Laszlo is unambigous", then you cannot tell Hebel has right...I have to also reject the charge of "pro-Hungarian nationalism", this is mostly used against the Hungarians or against everyone who does not support those obvious bias' that we notice. The editors participated in the discussion has zero influence on nationality or any nationalistic aim, just the pure historical facts and accuracy are concerned, that are so many times enquestioned and attacked regarding Hungary. The article was pretty good and stable for so many years, now 90% of the top important Hungary related content and section was deleted, and the citation does not represent the true content and meaning of the source that is on the edge of the debate!
-
- I urge Administrator's also with lawyer/jurisdiction or concrete mathematics/inference theory relation to join and read the correspondent talk pages since we cannot put blindly deficient citations losing their real meaning or to avoid average thinking and just to put and alter anything so long we clearly do not cross some technical rules of editing, I mention this since also the validity of my inference was attacked, alhough it should be obvious, not even a University Degree is neccesary to understand that! Good faith and the struggle for factuality and valid content cannot be compromised! Also please check my advice for consensus, since it contains the claimed deletion of a sentence and the the corresponding source's quotation unaltered, next to the former content that does not contradict anything. Moreover a new addition - not our edit - was also worked in those version. It is a pretty generous offer since non of our advices, not even a sub-part was accepted, that is not proving me the real sought for consensus!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC))
- Basically the Kingdom of Hungary, was caught up in a personal union that became an informal composite monarchy, the Habsburg Monarchy. It officially became a part of the Empire of Austria in 1804 when the former informal composite monarchy was reorganized in an Imperial State comprising many lands that kept the privileges they had enjoyed before. We can have different opinions about how much those privileges were worth under Habsburg rule, but still they were there especially for Hungary that, when it concerned matters Hungarian, was theoretically ruled by it's King and Diet rather than by the overarching Emperor. It has occurred to me since a couple of years that some people are in denial of the fact that Hungary was included in that Imperial State from 1804 to 1848. While Imperial institutions had nothing to say about matters Hungarian, the very idea that Hungary was not a fully sovereign state in that period seems to be so obnoxious to some, that they are looking for rationalizations about how the country was not a part of the overarching Imperial state. But basically, those are not in the books. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hebel, why you think the administrators or other participants does not read the corresponding talk pages? Hungary DID NOT BECAME OFFICIALLY the part of the Austrian Empire, as even the source you are pushing is proving that. You ruined all the related articles with your fixa idea, but you could not present any proof, moreover, you systematically remove all other contents proving the divison and you play with words and hinder important information! What you call "theoretically" is just your POW, the are the legal status and laws that only counts! Also "what is in the books" is just a groundless claim, as "seeking for rationalization". Hungarians are fed up of corruption attempts of their history. Since the source speaks about a strictly FORMAL inclusion by an ASSUMPTION, at the same time it clearly stated not any legal terms or affiliations were changed, Article X remained as well in action thus Hungary remained, as it was a Regnum Independens, a separate country. The fact the King of Hungary also rendered the Emperor of Austria title, did not change anything. I have demonsrated more times your argumentation being illogic, contradictive, unfair, non-factual. About sovereignity, de facto sovereignity is always differs from de jure sovereignity, as it is also today. Many countries had a ruler from a foreign House, or by changed titles, but it did not necessarily affected them. You have no chance to distract the Administrators, you will see!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC))
- I've made another proposal at the talkpage of Austrian Empire. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I checked and answered there. Because of two major inaccuracy the proposal had to be denied.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC))
- I have to clarify articles on dispute has arisen to three - all of them should be discussed in this section since the root of the problem is the same, the main discussion isongoing still in the Austrian Empire - Talk page: Hungary section - Austrian Empire, Kingdom of Hungary 1526-1867, Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. The latter I did not remove any former addition I just expanded two added sources to have unambigous clear meaning, and a section was added with a modified content, the earlier version were long years present until the same problems arisen near May-summer when the drastic an inacceptable alteration of these pages took part. I did not see any consensus on that page, still I get accusations. Anyway I urge every administrators to check those edits, just to have a clear view how destructive could be to hinder the source's original content and how misleading would be the result. Also it has a clear sight remeving entire sections on fake grounds just to hinder a lawful situation of the subject. I recommend it to everyone, and I ask a protection for the page since my factual and good faith edit's are removed or reverted, also the protecion is asked to conserve my contributions, since it is a great chance to compare it with the similar content of the other two articles - where the disputed edits remanined unharmed until resolution - so non-experts can also see the difference and to understand more the root of the problem.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC))
- I've made another proposal at the talkpage of Austrian Empire. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hebel, why you think the administrators or other participants does not read the corresponding talk pages? Hungary DID NOT BECAME OFFICIALLY the part of the Austrian Empire, as even the source you are pushing is proving that. You ruined all the related articles with your fixa idea, but you could not present any proof, moreover, you systematically remove all other contents proving the divison and you play with words and hinder important information! What you call "theoretically" is just your POW, the are the legal status and laws that only counts! Also "what is in the books" is just a groundless claim, as "seeking for rationalization". Hungarians are fed up of corruption attempts of their history. Since the source speaks about a strictly FORMAL inclusion by an ASSUMPTION, at the same time it clearly stated not any legal terms or affiliations were changed, Article X remained as well in action thus Hungary remained, as it was a Regnum Independens, a separate country. The fact the King of Hungary also rendered the Emperor of Austria title, did not change anything. I have demonsrated more times your argumentation being illogic, contradictive, unfair, non-factual. About sovereignity, de facto sovereignity is always differs from de jure sovereignity, as it is also today. Many countries had a ruler from a foreign House, or by changed titles, but it did not necessarily affected them. You have no chance to distract the Administrators, you will see!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC))
- Basically the Kingdom of Hungary, was caught up in a personal union that became an informal composite monarchy, the Habsburg Monarchy. It officially became a part of the Empire of Austria in 1804 when the former informal composite monarchy was reorganized in an Imperial State comprising many lands that kept the privileges they had enjoyed before. We can have different opinions about how much those privileges were worth under Habsburg rule, but still they were there especially for Hungary that, when it concerned matters Hungarian, was theoretically ruled by it's King and Diet rather than by the overarching Emperor. It has occurred to me since a couple of years that some people are in denial of the fact that Hungary was included in that Imperial State from 1804 to 1848. While Imperial institutions had nothing to say about matters Hungarian, the very idea that Hungary was not a fully sovereign state in that period seems to be so obnoxious to some, that they are looking for rationalizations about how the country was not a part of the overarching Imperial state. But basically, those are not in the books. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- I urge Administrator's also with lawyer/jurisdiction or concrete mathematics/inference theory relation to join and read the correspondent talk pages since we cannot put blindly deficient citations losing their real meaning or to avoid average thinking and just to put and alter anything so long we clearly do not cross some technical rules of editing, I mention this since also the validity of my inference was attacked, alhough it should be obvious, not even a University Degree is neccesary to understand that! Good faith and the struggle for factuality and valid content cannot be compromised! Also please check my advice for consensus, since it contains the claimed deletion of a sentence and the the corresponding source's quotation unaltered, next to the former content that does not contradict anything. Moreover a new addition - not our edit - was also worked in those version. It is a pretty generous offer since non of our advices, not even a sub-part was accepted, that is not proving me the real sought for consensus!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC))
User:Tobibln and their long-term pattern of unsourced changes
This [1] is the last of a long record of unsourced additions of content from Tobibln (talk · contribs). The user continues ignoring the warnings left at their talk regarding the addition of unreferenced material. You may find more diffs at the user's talk. I believe other actions are now in order.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Which destination are you disputing? A quick check of Moscow Domodedovo Airport's flight schedule webpage verifies all the aiports Tobibln added. This is a nine year, 33k / 98.8% mainspace edit, drama free account [2]. Unreferenced material is allowed to be added -- a reference is only required if it's likely to be challenged. Why would someone argue about easily verified airplane destinations? NE Ent 17:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Have you heard about WP:BURDEN? References for start/end dates are required per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- I do notice that you have made several attempts to communicate with Tobibln. I notice that User:Tobibln has never responded to you or anyone else on their user talk page or article talk page. There does seem to be a failure to respond to legitimate concerns or communication in general. It seems in 9 years this user has somehow not talked to anyone. HighInBC 18:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, let's just wait for their opinion here, although my major concern is that they keep introducing unsourced statements. Maybe we have a WP:COMPETENCE issue here.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've also noticed this behavior, and I've undone lots of his edits, like this. Looking at his contributions, I've found this old edit, where Tobibln talked to another user. So I don't understand why he's not responding on his talk page, as the user has certainly seen notifications. Wjkxy (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, let's just wait for their opinion here, although my major concern is that they keep introducing unsourced statements. Maybe we have a WP:COMPETENCE issue here.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- I do notice that you have made several attempts to communicate with Tobibln. I notice that User:Tobibln has never responded to you or anyone else on their user talk page or article talk page. There does seem to be a failure to respond to legitimate concerns or communication in general. It seems in 9 years this user has somehow not talked to anyone. HighInBC 18:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- WP:BURDEN says "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." (wikilink original). The advice at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT includes "10. For current destinations, the implicit reference is the airline's published timetable. If the flight is in the timetable and not challenged, an explicit reference is not normally included." In both examples given in this thread, finding a reference to support Tobibln's addition was easy. The big picture question should be, what is more important, that Tobibln is improving mainspace by adding non-contentious, easily verifiable content without referencing it, or that they are not "following the rules"? Per Wikipedia:NOTBUREAUCRACY the obvious answer should be the former. NE Ent 12:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- You are missing the point here, I'm not talking about current destinations. They added an unsourced entry here [3] (i.e., the new service to Krasnoyarsk), that's the very reason of this discussion. And references should be provided, as stated in WP:VERIFY: ″All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.″ This is what Tobibln did not do. Their continuous addition of unsourced content like the one in the diff has to stop, mostly considering that they did not reply to any of my messages left at their talk and that, despite being well aware of the verififiability policy, continued with their behaviour.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Here [4] you have a clean example (i.e., not masked by current destinations that currently do not require a citation) of a totally unsourced addition made by this editor.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- You are missing the point here, I'm not talking about current destinations. They added an unsourced entry here [3] (i.e., the new service to Krasnoyarsk), that's the very reason of this discussion. And references should be provided, as stated in WP:VERIFY: ″All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.″ This is what Tobibln did not do. Their continuous addition of unsourced content like the one in the diff has to stop, mostly considering that they did not reply to any of my messages left at their talk and that, despite being well aware of the verififiability policy, continued with their behaviour.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
-
@Tobibln: you have been here almost 10 years but have never really talked to anyone in the community. We are a collaborative project, please discuss this with us. HighInBC 21:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Well this user has not edited since this post here. I would say that this is probably going to get archived without a response. I think if it carries on and they continue to fail to communicate that it should be brought back here and this thread linked to. HighInBC 15:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Edit war on the history of Haiti
(non-admin closure) This is a content dispute. Please take this to the talk page of the article. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user Savvyjack23 has been attempting to censure any mention of the Haitian genocide from the article on Haiti. I request an Administrator to help mediate the situation, and take an unbiased view at the current article.
The article in question is Haiti.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haitian STEVE (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the situation and agree Savvyjack23 was correct to revert your edits. I suggest you get consensus for your controversial edits on the talk page instead of keep attempting to force it into the introduction. Number 57 18:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- If this is a content dispute, dispute resolution such as WP:3O may be helpful, assuming there's been sufficient discussion on the talk page. clpo13(talk) 18:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment: This is far from the truth. (As per mentioned above,) and while many of Haitian STEVE's edits in the past have also been controversial. If you look at his talk page, he has removed all the warnings he has incurred up to this point. To whom it may concern, thanks. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Removing a warning is proof that the user saw the warning, and it remains in the history for all to see. So, that's a thing. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- 3O wouldn't work because Number 57 has already given an opinion. I'd say the OP is heading for a boomerang. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bias in Sporting Clube de Portugal by User:SportingCP1906
(@Yamaguchi先生 and Davefelmer:)
I don't know if this is the right place, and I have complained in Yamaguchi先生's talk page, but please review edits in Sporting Clube de Portugal since 24 November 2015, before SportingCP1906 (talk · contribs) joined Wikipedia. As a Sporting CP supporter, he has been introducing blantant bias in the article, using primary sources, unreliable sources, non-notable content, and unsourced content about living people. Thank you very much. 85.240.145.18 (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
SportingCP1906 has also been uploading copyrighted images to Commons without permission to be used in Sporting Clube de Portugal. 85.240.145.18 (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I am free at the moment and I will have a look at the article. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- @FreeatlastChitchat: First of all, thanks for your assistance.
- The sentence "3.5 million fans spread across the globe" in the lead is unsourced. It's a claim made by Sporting CP. The rivalries section has heavy bias, for example, it does not mention the fact that Sporting CP fans put a stand of Estádio da Luz on fire when Benfica beat Sporting in 2011. This incident is way way more notable than "In 2015, in a futsal derby, members of No Name Boys referenced the incident by showing a banner with the inscription "Very Light 96", an act which infuriated Sporting", which actually was a consequence of Sporting fans making fun of the death of one of No Name Boys founders, Gullit, before the futsal match. "Some argued that the incident of 1996 wasn't an accident, but a deliberate act to cause injury on Sporting fans", the source is not working and Record is a newspaper close to Sporting, part of group Cofina (yes, like a conspiracy. "Álvaro Sobrinho is also the largest private investor in Sporting Clube de Portugal" and "holds large investments in telecommunications with YooMee Africa and the media industry with Newshold Group", related to Cofina...), and according to Portuguese media the incident has always been described as an accident. To imply that it wasn't is speculation, a serious accusation and a BLP violation on the person who did it (he already served his time in prison), whom is still alive.
- "and fans of the club were so disgusted by their team's performance that they began setting fire to their scarfs and flags", the source is from a Sporting supporters website, and the claim is doubtful since is usually made by Sporting supporters to infuriate Benfica supporters. For example, Sporting fans still commemorate the result of that match, despite Benfica won the league and cup that season.
- "Sporting were heavy favorites, and at the time had one of the greatest squads that ever graced Portuguese football pitches" clearly biased. 85.240.145.18 (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand the issue here, but it seems everything I write is either biased or incorrect. I do not intend to offend anyone or start a edit war, but this is very unpleasant, as I'm just completing a page that was extremely incomplete before i joined wikipedia.
First things first: I do not own any of the pictures, however, I use them as a free licence for educational purposes, and they all relate to important moments of Sporting. What I'm going to do is put the places where I have taken the pictures from. As such, people can know I'm only citing other sources for educational purposes.
Second: the person who says Record belongs to Cofina and has close ties to Sporting, but does not show facts to prove the point. So if I'm biased and I use unsourced evidence, the same should apply to the user in question.
Third: :"Sporting were heavy favorites, and at the time had one of the greatest squads that ever graced Portuguese football pitches" clearly biased. . [1]This is from a Benfica blog, as such, is biased, but it says exactly the same as I was saying. The person in question must be portuguese, because seems to know a lot about portuguese football, as such, must have faculties to read the article. And for a fact, Sporting had a great team: Luis Figo (future Ballon d'Or Winner), Paulo Sousa (two-time UEFA Champions League winner) and Balakov, recently considered the greatest Stuttgart player of all time. Also, I say Benfica won the championship, I do not hide that.
Fourth: I talk about dark periods of the club, such as the nearly demise in 2012-13 and the 12-1 aggregate loss for Bayern Munich in 2009. Also, there are videos on the Internet proving Benfica fans set fire to the scarfs and flags. And before that I say "Benfica were at the head of the table", something not mentioned.
Fifth: Regarding the very light incident, I will had more information regarding behavior of both clubs, I do not argue with that. However, I must show this [2] TSF is one of the most renowned radios in Portugal, as such, is reliable.
The person clearly supports Benfica, and there is a conflict of interest for both sides then. However, I'm going to keep edit and fulfill a page that deserves to be more complete. Any problem with that and I'm willing for a healthy discussion, not one that borders the ridicule.
References
- ^ "Jogos Imortais: Sporting 3 Sport Lisboa e Benfica 6". aminhachama.blogspot.pt. Retrieved 20 December 2015.
- ^ tsf.pt. TSF http://www.tsf.pt/desporto/interior/benfica-acabouse-o-blackout-comecou-o-folclore-4391774.html. Retrieved 20 December 2015. Missing or empty
|title=
(help)
- You don't understand copyright. What you do is license laundering, and you don't understand fair use.
- Portuguese people who follow Portuguese football know that. I don't have to prove it since I'm not editing Cofina or Record.
- Blogs aren't reliable sources.
- "Videos on the internet" aren't reliable sources.
- The "incident" in the futsal derby isn't notable when compared to the fire inside Estádio da Luz.
- If you really want to improve the article about your club, you should read Wikipedia:List of guidelines. 85.240.145.18 (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
As a Portuguese myself, the word Portugal caught my eye, and I am willing to help. However, I tried to go through the user in question's (user) contributions, and they're too long to analyze. Por favor, can you please provide diffs about their behavior on the article. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Yerevan Thermal Power Plant
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As a part of student assignement, Armanilogin (talk · contribs) and Eduard Muradyan (talk · contribs) continues to re-add copyrighted material to the Yerevan Thermal Power Plant. The issue is discussed at the articleõs talk page and at my talk page, but these editors refuse to understand the copyright violations policy and ignores the request to not restore copyrighted material or remove maintenance tgs without discussing first. Beagel (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear administration, the user Baegal does not discuss anything with us. He just deletes our work putting his own without explaining anything. We have redone our work 5 times and he does not respond in any way. He just puts the article the same way as he did before, and deletes our work constantly. IF we violate something he could at least explain us what to do. Nevertheless, he speaks with us with an offensive tone, and does not cooperate with us. We would be glad to cooperate with him and help wikipedia with its hard job. Also, you can see in his message lots of grammatical mistakes, that one more time proves his attitude. I think he has issues to my race/nationality. Best Regards, A new, but enthusiastic member of Wikipedia, Arman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanilogin (talk • contribs) 19:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've reverted once again and given each user a clear warning about this. Sam Walton (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- It still is going on [5]. Possible evasion of block. Beagel (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- And possible sockpuppet [6]. Beagel (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)When I arrived just now Armanilogin (talk · contribs) was already blocked 36h for copyvio after they continued the behavior. APEIJEQQAGHAQ (talk · contribs) was then created and continued attempting to "restructure" the article. I've indef'd that account as the loudest of ducks and semi-protected the article for 3 days to discourage further block evasion. Hopefully this will push the editors in question to discussion. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've changed the block of Armanilogin to indefinite due to the threats they just made on their talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Samwalton9: Could you also block APEIJEQQAGHAQ (talk · contribs) and Eduard Muradyan (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets/meatpuppets of the sockmaster? Thank you. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 18:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- @QEDK: Not so sure about Eduard Muradyan since they've been around the whole time. Beagel mentioned the possibility of a class project, which seems probable. Sam Walton (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Samwalton9: Yeah, seems to be a meatpuppet. I think we're better off giving a bit of ROPE one last time. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 19:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- @QEDK: Not so sure about Eduard Muradyan since they've been around the whole time. Beagel mentioned the possibility of a class project, which seems probable. Sam Walton (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Samwalton9: Could you also block APEIJEQQAGHAQ (talk · contribs) and Eduard Muradyan (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets/meatpuppets of the sockmaster? Thank you. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 18:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've changed the block of Armanilogin to indefinite due to the threats they just made on their talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)When I arrived just now Armanilogin (talk · contribs) was already blocked 36h for copyvio after they continued the behavior. APEIJEQQAGHAQ (talk · contribs) was then created and continued attempting to "restructure" the article. I've indef'd that account as the loudest of ducks and semi-protected the article for 3 days to discourage further block evasion. Hopefully this will push the editors in question to discussion. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- And possible sockpuppet [6]. Beagel (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- It still is going on [5]. Possible evasion of block. Beagel (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Multiple duplicate pages created by Wj887
(non-admin closure) USer warned. BMK (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user Wj887 appears to have created multiple duplicate pages which need deleting, under the names QHT, Quantum Hi-Tech, Quantum Hi Tech, etc. I was unable to pick them out specifically because they are exactly alike in terms of content. The articles he's created have been CSD tagged multiple times but the user has continued to recreate these articles. CatcherStorm talk 06:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- I gave him/her a final warning. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Page move and gaming the system
User:Nymf has gamed the system in a redirect "purposely" so a page move cannot be done. After 8 years I would think he would know this is against the rules of wikipedia. The gaming article in question is Malin Akerman. The proof that it was on purpose and that he will do the same again is Nymf's talk page. The background is the following. I had asked an administrator to delete the original "Malin Akerman" redirect article because someone had made it impossible to move "Malin Åkerman." This was done. This seemed like a no-brainer move like Martina Navratilova. Nothing on the talk page on moves in 5-6 years, actress lived whole life in North America, actress self-identifies with Akerman spelling in personal correspondence, and signature, etc... so the move was made.
It was moved back by Nymf with a summary of "per talk page RM request". I thought maybe I missed a new post on the talk page so I went back to check. Nothing, so the summary was bogus. Because it was bogus I checked Nymf's edits and saw he gamed the system by making it impossible to move back without another administrator visit. I told him as much on his talk page but he seemed defiant which told me he will do this again and again (and who knows how many times he's done this in 8 years). It still seems routine to me, but obviously this is a dispute I will now have to take to the Talk:Malin Åkerman page. I have no problem with his revert, but Nymf must be warned by someone official never to do this type of gaming thing again. I've seen many a block for this in my years but an official warning will hopefully suffice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- There is an old RM request that resulted in no consensus. On the talk page. Nymf probably intended to tell you that he doesn't want that move because of reasons mentioned in the old RM(Nymf partipiciated in it). It is definitely controversial to move, no matter what you think- there was a NC page move five years ago, and your bold move was opposed. Do a RM, and seek consensus. Sure, Nymf's reasoning was unclear, but please assume more good faith next time. I will talk with Nymf about his behaviour on his own talk page.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) There was no legitimate reason for this edit. If an edit subsequent to a move added redirect categories or something, that would be one thing, but removing whitespace that doesn't have any bearing on the article appearance is a clear sign of wanting to prevent a page move. Doing it to prevent an edit war is assuming bad faith given that there's no indication there would be multiple reverts. Anyways, per WP:BRD, the next step would simply be a move discussion on the talk page, since the last one was five years ago and closed as "no consensus". clpo13(talk) 20:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The only good faith explanation for this edit was that it was accidental, but Nymf's comment make it clear it was intentional. Warnings and/or sanctions are appropriate. NE Ent 20:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- The littlecircle can't be used in Canada where this person lives so even if the subject likes it, they would have trouble using it on documents. Both editors are being foolish spending time on this. Legacypac (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with the price of eggs? That might help and will be something that will be brought up when I form a proper RM (where I want to make sure the sourcing is neat and tidy). This is only about gaming the system, purposely. I asked Nymf to fix the situation so this an/i would never see the light of day, and the response was "Go ahead." So here we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- The MOS clearly allows provision for diacritics but as Nymf has pointed it, it's (apparently, I don't know much) a different letter altogether. I say, that the reasoning behind not moving the page was perfectly fine but gaming the system, to make it much harder to move it, was unjustified. And, WQA to the accused, please. Akerman's referred to by the media as Akerman, only because it's easier but since she doesn't bother to use that little circle (I don't know what to call it, sorry) on her social accounts, I'd say the OP's stance is the one I'm going to lean to. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 07:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with the price of eggs? That might help and will be something that will be brought up when I form a proper RM (where I want to make sure the sourcing is neat and tidy). This is only about gaming the system, purposely. I asked Nymf to fix the situation so this an/i would never see the light of day, and the response was "Go ahead." So here we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- The littlecircle can't be used in Canada where this person lives so even if the subject likes it, they would have trouble using it on documents. Both editors are being foolish spending time on this. Legacypac (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The only good faith explanation for this edit was that it was accidental, but Nymf's comment make it clear it was intentional. Warnings and/or sanctions are appropriate. NE Ent 20:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
BLP violations at Mo Ansar
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
LutonPete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Having an issue with this user at Mo Ansar, repeatly reverting to insert their negatively-skewed POV of this political commentator. Has been warned by several editors not to reinsert defamatory material like this but continues unabated, with edit summaries such as "unfortunately for you, it's the truth". Only edits this article, unless it's to insert negative POV about this person in other articles. WP:NOTHERE block appears to be in order. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- A quite horrid BLP at best. I cleaned up some of the worst bits, but a lot of it is still "sourced" to YouTube. Collect (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I have referenced all of my edits. Although they have been taken out, feel free to check back. I have reverted some and it has then gone back without references. I can only apologise for being new and not getting the rules right. This whole page since Dec 2015 was edited into a promo page, which i don't think this site should be used for. The Youtube channel you talk of collect hosted nothing but footage of the subject, including a recording of one of his personal phone calls. I will leave you to decide who runs the 'Driller Kay' account on Youtube.
Ivanvector unfortunately there is a lot of negative points around the subject of this page. As I'm sure you can see by the evidence that 'either he or someone close to him' edited this page to make himself look good. I have inserted many credible links and citings to my edits of which you and others have removed, however they do not breech conduct rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LutonPete (talk • contribs) 01:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
LutonPete continues to edit war ([7] [8] [9]) to reinsert improperly sourced defamatory material about this living person, despite being told that their sources are unacceptable and their edits violate policy. Asking for an admin to intervene. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've blocked the account indefinitely.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Security concern
(non-admin closure) Confusion cleared up byDHeyward. BMK (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I received this message on my talk page; an IP accusing me of making an edit on his talk page, today. I tried to investigate to see what I might have done (by accident) and the user page shows its history with one edit credited to me, looping back to MY talk page. My contributions shows no edit to this IP user page. So this is a most confusing loop of unsubstantial accusations and misdirected history. Is this a breach in the security or some other manipulation? Trackinfo (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see anything. What user page are you referring to? Prodego talk 05:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm only seeing the IP's edit on your talk page, but nothing that looks like you (or someone faking you) editing their page. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's a trap! Because the IP doesn't have a user page, clicking the IP shows his contributions, not his user page or a diff. Normally you'd expect to see a page or a diff or a history of that page but because it's an IP it's howing his contributions. Nothing to worry about. Just read the top of the page where it says it's his contributions and not a user page, history or diff. --DHeyward (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More Dodgyness
More dodgyness, just like some previous dodgyness.
User:Nimmu23 and User:Zestmind
These two SPAs are likely the same person. Both followed the same sneaky method to introduce there adverts into Wikipedia.
Start a sandbox.
After waiting a period of time create an article.
Hijack a unrelated redirect.
- dif deleted. (Barbara Khozam) Zestmind
- Nimmu23
Move to new location.
Change target of resulting redirect back to what was there.
Both also created short user and talk pages on the same day as they introduced their spam to mainspace.
Is this the MO of a new shills sockfarm? Am I right in guessing these two are too old for a checkuser at SPI? Anyone seeing the like still happening? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- It looks like a duck to me. I'm pretty sure a CU check will result in
{{Confirmed}}
(if sockpuppets). Hence, a few blocks are in order. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 07:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)- @Duffbeerforme: The accounts are indeed stale when it comes to the Checkuser tool.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like a duck to me. I'm pretty sure a CU check will result in
User Randall Adhemar and IP 69.200.228.170 - Persistent addition of unsourced content and unwillingness to comply
This user/IP has been persistenly adding unsourced content to various articles and continues to do so after a final warning on his talk page User talk:69.200.228.170.
- 69.200.228.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Randall Adhemar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Note that this fixed IP indeed belongs to the registered user: [12], [13], [14].
On several occasions the user has come to my talk page with walls of text, protesting about my removals of his unsourced content: archived here and currently here. On each occasion I responded that Wikipedia needs sources. He also went to user NeilN's talk page with similar complaints (User talk:NeilN/Archive 27#Calculus) and User talk:NeilN/Archive 27#Calculus_2, where he was replied to by users NeilN and My very best wishes. This user/IP seems to be convinded that given his expertise in certain matters, that their is no need for him to provide sources. With this particular edit he added—directly into the article—a typical talk page like comment, including a personal comment about me. At that point I gave him a 3rd level warning ([15]). After his next unsourced edit ([16]), I gave a final warning ([17]).
After that final warning:
- "Things that are not in question, are well-established historically and amid the scholarly community and more, do not require citation. This is a rule of scholarship."
- "I will continue to state the sky is blue without sourcing, any whatsoever"
- (large rant), responded by tps users Paradoctor ([18]) and NottNott ([19]).
- "DMDv uniformly suppresses, claims privilege to do so based on not being a scholar or having qualifications, claims wikipedia is not scholarship, notes suggest obvious vendetta, considering the much unsourced material in wikipedia"
In view of this last edit summary I decided not to reply anymore. This user seems not be interested in how Wikipedia works, he refuses to properly format talk page messages, assumes bad faith, ignores comments pointing to relevant policies and guidelines and helpful essays, attributes other people's helpful comments to me. Perhaps adminstrative action might help here? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
User and IP notified on talk pages: ([20], [21]). - DVdm (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Help with cleanup
I came across the article for Smart Boys as an A7. It was a film so it didn't qualify for an A7, but a look showed that it was created by a sockpuppet of User:Gantlet, who was blocked in 2010 and was evading said block. A look at the article creation history for this sockpuppet (User:Rajeshbieee) shows a whopping 900+ pages. Many of these appear to be for barely notable films. This search engine is likely the best way to look.
Each of these pages need to be gone through and if they don't assert notability or have some glaring errors, be deleted as a page created by someone evading a block/ban. This will be a massive undertaking and I'd appreciate anyone that wants to help with searching and tagging. I'm not going to delete all of them without doing at least a cursory search for sourcing since some of them might pass GNG or some variation thereof. Still, the temptation to just delete them as creations by a sock is strong and I feel that the best way to avoid doing a massive, possible detrimental deletion would be to go through these one by one. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Without yet looking at the articles, they should either be mass-deleted (assuming nobody touched them after the sock), or we need a coordination page similar to CCI pages, otherwise it will be a lot of time wasted.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I brought this up at WP:INDIA and @Sitush: said the same thing. I figure that this is likely the easiest and possibly best outcome here. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- If its 900+ pages someone other than socks must have definitely edited them. I prefer a coordination page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, where would be the best place to coordinate this? -- samtar whisper 12:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Does not really matter; For instance, WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I've very basically put together blocks of ~50 articles to be checked - is this the best method of splitting the work? -- samtar whisper 12:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I though about asking a bot to add there all the titles (possibly split into blocks) and then posting individual progress. See how it is done at WP:CCI, e.g. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Proudbolsahye.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I've very basically put together blocks of ~50 articles to be checked - is this the best method of splitting the work? -- samtar whisper 12:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Does not really matter; For instance, WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, where would be the best place to coordinate this? -- samtar whisper 12:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to ping you to AN/I @Cyberpower678: do you think you could assist with this given your bot expertise -- samtar whisper 13:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- I've just run a quick Python script to generate a list of all the titles at WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee; it's pretty basic, but it's on Wiki, rather than elsewhere. Feel free to revert if you want something with more detail. Harrias talk 14:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- For the time being, Harrias could you modify your script to insert a line every 50 articles saying "Block x" (x=x+1) so it can be divvied up? -- samtar whisper 14:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- We can do it manually I guess. Thanks Harrias--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Labs seems to have gone down, as it does intermittently, otherwise I'd be happy to run it again. Harrias talk 14:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- You've probably already done what you want to do here; but if not, you could use this tool. The output can be downloaded as wiki markup and pasted wherever you want it (that's how the CCI listings are generated). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Labs seems to have gone down, as it does intermittently, otherwise I'd be happy to run it again. Harrias talk 14:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- We can do it manually I guess. Thanks Harrias--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- For the time being, Harrias could you modify your script to insert a line every 50 articles saying "Block x" (x=x+1) so it can be divvied up? -- samtar whisper 14:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've just run a quick Python script to generate a list of all the titles at WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee; it's pretty basic, but it's on Wiki, rather than elsewhere. Feel free to revert if you want something with more detail. Harrias talk 14:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think people should slow down here. While User:Gantlet was blocked in 2010, that was only a 35-day block, and had expired when most if not all of the articles involved were created. Gantlet wasn't blocked again until this month. Their recidivist socking apparently went undetected for too long, but that alone isn't grounds for summarily purging their contributions. G5 isn't retroactive, and I fear it looks like the articles need to be examined individually and taken through standard deletion processes as appropriate. Or have I missed something? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note that the deleted article Smart Boys was recreated by a new user Omkaaram. Whoever wants to pursue a SPI investigation, this is probably a good case. (The article itself has no issues).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is going to be a mess. I did a spot check of some of the items in the first 50 entries at WP:INDIA/Rajeshbieee. Maybe 75% of what I checked is definitely deletion-worthy. However some were not. Brianhe.public (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- I like the coordination page - I'll get started on some of these right now. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Tokyogirl79, Ymblanter, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz raises a good question about G5 eligibility. As the admins involved in this mess, how do you see this? If an article is problematic, should I G5, or send to AfD? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Personally I have no true issue deleting these as G5, but I will hold off at this point since I do see some valid points brought up as to why G5 wouldn't entirely qualify here. I'd argue that we should give G5 a little wiggle room here since this will potentially mean hundreds of articles flooding AfD or PROD, which would be more time consuming than if we were to just G5 them as a sock creation. I'd say that this should only apply to articles that are obviously non-notable and cannot be redirected to a valid target like a director filmography. Anything that seems like it could potentially be notable (ie, two usable RS) should go through the other avenues. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Basically, AfD is usually overwhelmed with candidates as it is and we have a person here who has created 900+ articles. If even a fourth of that goes to AfD, that means that there will be over 200 articles going to AfD. Some of these articles are very quickly checked, so this could mean dozens of AfDs open within a short period of time. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
User:BlackJack
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would an uninvolved admin please take a look at these edits by BlackJack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): [22][23]? They certainly seem to cross the line into personal attacks: in eight years I've never before been told that I am "unfit to be an editor here". StAnselm (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Everything that Anselm has done on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination) and the article itself needs to be scrutinised, including his convenient relationship with User:Reyk who seems to be on hand whenever anyone replies to Anselm. Anselm has annoyed more than one experienced editor with his condescending attitude and his over-zealous views about the BLP policy, even though he is guilty of breaching the policy himself. He does not comply with WP:AGF and, in that respect, the limit is this accusation: "Now, the fact that you now refer to a guide issued "about 2005" suggests that "Sri Lankan cricketers, 2015" is simply a made-up reference that you added to the article. Don't do that, please". Nothing has been made up as any sensible person reading the discussion would immediately agree. His attitude is disgraceful and several of his actions are completely out of order. In my opinion, he is unfit to be an editor and should resign from WP. Jack | talk page 13:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- What this comes down to, StAnselm, is the pure case of verifiability. Technically nothing is verifiable unless we were there at the time witnessing it, and if we *were* there at the time, then this contravenes WP:PRIMARY. Essentially we would end up in a situation where we had *no* articles on Wikipedia, because nothing is truly verifiable. Bobo. 14:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is a reignition of [24]. All this great drama is around the Article for Deletion discussion about S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer), a former first-class cricketer in Sri Lanka. This person is surely less notable in the US than (choose your favorite candidate to the next coming election), but there are some sources about him. Nevertheless it seems that at least one side of the discussion is using arguments that are not established cricket technical expression, like "forgiveness my arse" and "mendacious fuckwittery". It could be useful to remind some 'older' editors that being calm and level-headed could be more convincing than ... I don't remember the exact established cricket technical expression to use here. Pldx1 (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Hint to the random passerby: use https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?project=en.wikipedia.org&toplimit=10&user=xxx before having the false impression that any of them could be a newcomer. Pldx1 (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like things have cooled. I've left BlackJack a message about making sure to stay civil in the future, which I hope will resolve this thread. Prodego talk 18:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment(ec)- StAnselm points out that Jack's precious new sources don't actually say everything Jack claims they do, and Jack responds by attacking StAnselm's religion. That's fucking low, and any remaining inclination I might have had to extend this guy any assumption of good faith is gone. Also not a fan of the following:
-
- Re-creating an article that was deleted via consensus at AfD (and confirmed by DRV), with juuuuuuust enough cosmetic changes to persuade a lenient admin not to G4 the wretched thing, despite doing nothing to actually address the reason for deletion. If someone immediately renominates a kept article just to get another roll of the AfD dice, that would not be permitted. This is exactly the same thing.
- Places two warning templates on StAnselm's talk page at once, then "Look how many warning templates he has" along with a lot of associated bluster. Not to mention that placing the warning templates in the first place was silly tit-for-tat retaliation for this.
- Lots of personal attacks: 'idiot', 'You are a condescending individual whose motives are highly questionable.' , 'You are a disgrace.', 'infantile sidekick'. Took me a little while to realise this last attack was aimed at me, because I don't recall having much interaction with StAnselm before we crossed paths at the Perera AfD. Not sure if I'm being accused of sockpuppetry or what, but I think deigning to answer this allegation would give it a veneer of legitimacy. Reyk YO! 18:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps User:Reyk could tell us his opinion about the sentence I just haven't got the time or patience to indulge your brand of mendacious fuckwittery that someone used in the aforementioned Article for Deletion discussion ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC) .
-
- No, but I can reveal that I have no time or patience for smug passive-aggressive fuckwittery either. If you have an issue with me, have the decency to talk to me directly instead of adopting this haughty attitude. And before you start screaming "WAA! NPA!" let me remind you that I am describing behaviour, not namecalling. Reyk YO! 14:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Two wrongs do not make a right - making a personal attack in response to a personal attack is still a personal attack. "It's behavior, not namecalling" is WP:WIKILAWYERING. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, that all worked, didn't it? BJ has stomped off into retirement, which makes resolution of the original issue at this AfD a lot more difficult. Sometimes we have to put up with people like him who are brusque in manner and direct in tone because they get things done. Johnlp (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- "Brusque" is quite the euphemism in this instance. Wikipedia can get along just fine without "brusque" editors, no matter what their perceived importance is. clpo13(talk) 09:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed; if somebody flounces in response to being called out for blatant personal attacks, Wikipedia will survive without them. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Brusque" is quite the euphemism in this instance. Wikipedia can get along just fine without "brusque" editors, no matter what their perceived importance is. clpo13(talk) 09:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Scottywong's FCOI
As consensus appears to be no admin action is forthcoming, interested editors are encourage to continue the conversation at Talk:CobraNet NE Ent 12:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Scottywong (talk · contribs)
- CobraNet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User_talk:Scottywong#Conflict_of_interest
- Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#CobraNet
Scottywong has apparently come out of retirement to defend CobraNet. CobraNet is currently a GA article that Scottywong created with his very first edit, and which he worked on for over two years to get approved as a GA.
Scottywong currently has a WP:FCOI with some portions of the article, being an employee of a non-notable company highlighted in the article whose publications are being used as sources.
Scottywong doesn't believe he has a FCOI in this situation, and has pointed out that he originally added the content and sources before he was hired by the company.
Scottywong hasn't disclosed his identity nor his employer, and would like it to remain so. I am not aware of him disclosing enough information about himself to make his identity apparent. He has made his employer rather easy to determine given his comments and editing given what he says here. I expect that was made in response to situations where similar disclosures where made. I'm unaware of those edits/discussions. I've not looked to see if he's made similar, coi-violating edits.
The problems that I'm having with Scottywong is that he doesn't feel he has a FCOI, he's not been following COI (especially WP:COIADVICE), and he's pushing the limits of WP:COITALK (granted, there's no evidence he's being paid to edit Wikipedia). Most importantly, his participation in the current content dispute at CobraNet places the disclosure of his employer in jeopardy, and creates a great deal of doubt that he can put the interests (policies, etc) of Wikipedia before those of his employer (especially when you know who that employer is). If he wants to keep the identity of his employer private, he should not be making the edits and comments that he has.
I don't keep abreast of how much more strongly COI has been enforced the past few years after the FCOI restrictions were extended, and have only glanced at some of the ArbCom and other discussions that led to the new restrictions. I hope editors more familiar with the FCOI changes will comment. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ronz, according to your editing history, you apparently have a determined mission to seek out the slightest resemblance, however innocent, of COI. While that is perhaps admirable, I have been following your discussions with Scottywong and it appears to me that you have practically forced him out of retirement to answer to your claims. Your relentless pursuit under the guise of polite conversation is undue and Scottywong in my opinion was wrong to even engage with you. My suggestion to you both is for Scott to relax any claims he holds over that ancient creation and let it be disfigured, even deleted, and enjoy his retirement. May I respectfully suggest that Ronz channel their efforts into helping to combat and clean up far more serious cases of organised large-scale paid advocacy such as the ongoing Orangemoody and similar issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ronz means well but is unable to communicate (as in two-way: the output system works well, but the input system is defective). I suppose disinterested editors will have to watch the circus and try to revert any excess. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- So far the read has been more fun than watching reruns on Netflix. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Scottywong had a spotless record at Wikipedia and built really informative tools during his stay. I'm pretty sure he's had more interaction with the policies than most of us (passive-aggressive way of bringing up our horrible editor retention stats). Now, I went through the discussions you specified and the only conclusion I draw is, you're unnecessarily drawing out his past where he was made the victim, just like here. I don't know where you spotted his wrongful behavior and I don't see it now. Nor do I know what you seek out of this ANI. He had defended Kvng who has yes, held his stance aggressively, edit-warring too, that's wrong. But I don't think, that can be held against him to slam sanctions. I don't believe I've had any personal interaction with Scottywong before, so hey boy, no COI here. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 12:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Scottywong made his COI statement in May 2012. I have no interest in looking why he made it. He brought it up, not me. I am very cautious when it comes to avoiding any outing, but if editors feel otherwise, please provide diffs or the like so I can improve.
- Apparently he is less that familiar with our policies when it comes to spam [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] (granted, the last two are questionable].
- He's employed by a company that he highlights in the article, and reverted to retain the portion of that content currently under dispute [30] [31] [32] . These reverts violate COI. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Deleting an external link to the subject of the article seems rather stupid. Further, you seem to be hounding him, and I seem to recall where he says he does not have any COI so you really need to lay off your claims. You seem to be the problem editor here. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Concerning the external links: He followed me to articles to challenge my routine cleanup of them.
- He wrote, "Also, at the time that I originally wrote this article, I was not employed by the same company I am employed by now. So, when you say that I used my own employer as a source, that's not accurate. At the time that I actually wrote that article and used that source, they were not my employer. " I'm not saying his original edits violated FCOI, I'm saying the diffs above do, and he's confirmed it. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know who added all that content (haven't gone through all the diffs) but the stuff restored by Scottywong does read like an advertisement, uses peacock terms and there's light puffery. I'm unsure about my stance now. But, let us not insinuate just because Scottywong has declined to provide any information about his employment, he isn't required to do so. Also, adding external links is fine, but I've barely seen anyone do so and in many cases (read: not all), it's people promoting themselves. Also, I agree with Sir Joseph when it comes to the hounding issue, take it down a notch. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 16:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Pinging @Scottywong:. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 16:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- I can't close this because I've already commented. However, Ronz, it appears you have not taken any notice whatsoever of what others have said, so the very least you deserve is a big wet trout for starting the thread in the first place. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ronz' editing behaviour has been so simplistically dogmatic in the past (All ELs must perish, no matter what value they add) that I've wondered if they weren't a 'bot. Certainly they could be implemented as one. Sadly, this issue doesn't shift my opinion.Andy Dingley (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WillShowU
(non-admin closure) WillShowU blocked for 48 hours by Bishonen. BMK (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WillShowU appears to think that he can issue edicts unilaterally in Indian cinema articles, and the result is persistent disruption. I will point out that the user has been active since only November 30, 2015, made a few edits at a few different articles, but then really and hit the ground running. This is a pattern often seen among people who work in editing rings. They often do diverse editing early on to get past the autoconfirmed filters.
- Here he removes a box office value from a film article's infobox with the edict "worldwide gross is added after full run". I try to explain to him that common editing practice is to update this value as new information unfolds. There's nothing at Template:Infobox film that dissuades this. He doesn't reply.
- Here he removes the gross values from the infobox again, explaining "worldwide gross can be added at the end. Please." I warned him about that again. No response.
- Here he changes the box office value, but the reference used shows a range of 145-150. He picked the higher number instead of presenting the range. I asked him why he didn't present the range. He ignored the question.
- Here he again removes the box office gross value from the infobox, commenting "For God's Sake, listen to me. I dont have the time to take a silly thing to the talk page. We will add gross at the end, otherwise different people will come with different sources, vandalize the page or start an edit war. Please use your brain."
Editor needs to be clearly edified that this is a community project, that he doesn't get to unilaterally fabricate rules and issue edicts, that he can't edit war, and that he can't attempt WP:OWNERSHIP of the article. Between me and other admins, it wouldn't surprise me if he was a sock of someone, although I have not yet determined who yet. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and I just noticed that he made this edit where he introduces content lifted verbatim from Times of India. So integrity is also an issue here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- @Cyphoidbomb: The user is an WP:SPA having edited article only related to the film Dilwale (2015 film); might also have WP:COI somehow or be a paid editor and might need a disclaimer per WP:PAID. I have dropped a note on their page regarding this. Lets see what they reply. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- In this edit, he uses the edit summary: "Remember that I am being as cordial as I can. I have explained my edits once before and if anyone has a doubt, can check that. I don't know who is retarded enough to not understand." If this is as cordial as he gets, we may have a problem. There certainly do seem to be strong elements of ownership here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- And the really sad thing about this, is that he had to backpedal on his obnoxious bluster after he realized he was wrong. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- In this edit, he uses the edit summary: "Remember that I am being as cordial as I can. I have explained my edits once before and if anyone has a doubt, can check that. I don't know who is retarded enough to not understand." If this is as cordial as he gets, we may have a problem. There certainly do seem to be strong elements of ownership here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: The user is an WP:SPA having edited article only related to the film Dilwale (2015 film); might also have WP:COI somehow or be a paid editor and might need a disclaimer per WP:PAID. I have dropped a note on their page regarding this. Lets see what they reply. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Aaaaaand here's another delightful tidbit. He's unilaterally deciding what is or isn't a sufficient source for box values. If anybody changes the gross or source, they must explain their edit and give a better and more convincing source than this (not Bollywood Hungama, Koimoi etc.) The Indian cinema task force is fine with Bollywood Hungama. They're not happy about Koimoi, but it's been very difficult to enforce. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Update: I'm convinced now that this is a sock of WikiBriefed Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- WillShowU blocked for 48 hours. If they should stop editing after the 48-hour block, as WikiBriefed did in November, I guess that would be further suggestive of sockpuppetry. Bishonen | talk 16:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC).
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Jisteele
Back in October 2013 the above user was temporarily blocked at User talk:Jisteele for vandalism. It appears that this user has been up to the same shenanigans. Just go to his or her contributions here, and you will find plenty of changes in articles about towns and neighborhoods that are quite minor and not explained in an edit summary. If I am not mistaken, this fellow or girl has also been doing the same kind of edits under a different name, for which he or she has been blocked. I certainly hope you can look into this and take the necessary steps. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think this IP is the same person, with the same kind of bad edits (very minor, with no Edit summaries). BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
College Football Data Warehouse
College Football Data Warehouse the website that we link to for their stats is listed by Google as actively distributing malware. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- College Football Data Warehouse is an excellent website, arguably the best for American college football historical schedules and win-loss records, etc., for teams and coaches. Unfortunately, their website security is abysmal, and the site has been repeatedly hijacked by third-party hackers for distributing malware over the past couple of years. The problem seems to affect our links to the site rather direct visits to it. You may want to speak with Jweiss11 and Cbl62, who have been in direct contact with the website's creators and maintenance people in the past. They need to take a more pro-active approach to website security, or WP:CFB is going to have to consider completely de-linking all of our articles because we cannot in good faith recommend the site to our readers or use it for linked references if they cannot address their security problems in a more effective way. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- You could use WebCite or the Internet Archive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Anjo-sozinho has for, I believe some years now shown a pattern of disruptive editing on pages concerning the Portuguese monarchy, in which he furthers the claims of a woman claiming to be an illegitimate daughter of King Carlos I and claiming to have been made an heir to the throne by him. Although these claims are highly doubtful, specially the last one. He has repeatedly insisted on adding information about this woman, who called herself Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança to various articles without consensus about whether the information was a) properly sourced and b) within the scope of the article at all. Most recently at: Carlos I of Portugal and earlier at House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. He also has caused considerable trouble on the pages of present members of the House of Braganza by deleting dynastic titles and moving the articles to names that omitted those, this because he apparently feels their claims should not be acknowledged. The articles involved were among others: Infante Miguel, Duke of Viseu, Infante Henrique, Duke of Coimbra, Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza, Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza, Maria Francisca of Orléans-Braganza, Duchess of Braganza. He must know that he has no consensus for the notability or the veracity of the claims made and he mostly refuses to seek it. There have been 3rr incidents in the past. His operations on these pages are one big exercise in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and frankly I don’t see his behaviour changing any time soon. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have placed an EW and a final DE warnings on their talk page. If they resume reverting, I would say to please refer to 3RR for a temporary solution in order to settle this and gain admin attention simultaneously . Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks User:Callmemirela. The thing is that he is the one adding information and I am the one who is reverting, so I feel at a slight disadvantage. But I'll get over it :-). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Hebel: No problem. I am currently monitoring the situation and will be inclined to revert if necessary. But so far they have rested, which is a good thing. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 06:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks User:Callmemirela. The thing is that he is the one adding information and I am the one who is reverting, so I feel at a slight disadvantage. But I'll get over it :-). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Pseudohistory edits by anon user
Hi, all! Please review edits made recently by IPs
- 77.49.124.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- 62.1.108.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- 188.4.149.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- 77.49.108.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- 178.128.160.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- 188.4.85.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
He/she might well be a sole person alternating his IP, focused on the same football club artcle (Panathinaikos F.C. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) and the continuous removal of a certain phrase, without presenting documentation or providing inadequate/offensive Edit summaries. A similar attempt in the corresponding Greek WP article took place last summer –including far more abusive language– and it was succesfully dealt with (further information at your disposal). Although there has been a warning via User talk:178.128.160.241 ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs), he came back this morning to remove the said point, though it had been revised (previous version in the article by other user: 1, version by me: 2).
I'm afraid it is not just a case of Personal research, POV, edit warring or 3RR. As can be easily understood by reading a summer 2014 discussion in User talk:188.4.153.227 ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs) (in Greeklish, but an English translation could be provided if you wish), the forementioned phrase contradicts a very recent and much disputed theory concerning who or what was the inspiration behind the introduction of shamrock as emblem of the above football club back in 1918/1919. Apart from revealing that this theory is nothing but a 2/3 year-old creation by the owner of a no longer existinging football fans web page (not surprsingly, 188.4.153.227 may be the owner himslef), he actually admits that it was "established" THROUGH its introduction in WP! A totally undocumented contibution, since all sources used now are more recent than the site's article and the introduction in WP! Furthermore, the user he is discussing with believes that these sources do copied WP – an opinion for which he was literally attacked for (who are you to say so? You have no evidence, so it's rubbish...). Needless to mention that the single interest of 188.4.153.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) in WP, was again Panathinaikos FC article and especially "protecting" the hypothesis from being removed by skeptical users.
In case you need further information, please do not hesitate to ask for (my Talk page in Greek version is here). Thank you in advance for your time, interest and future actions. Merry Xmas to us all!!!
PS his/their attempt of creating pseudohistory by taking advantage of –or even exploiting– WP's expansion and popularity, will be presented via our Forum to editors of Greek version and many of them will recall last summer's incident. Let me know whether you prefer a translation of just my initiall post or a briefing of discussion's evolvment. --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Panathinaikos F.C. semi protected for one month without prejudice to what might be a correct revision. Technically , Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης you are well into a 3rr but I will not block you, but let this be a stern warning not to let it go that far again and report such issues here before it does. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Not just you, but no one knows what really happened one century ago, so all views should be presented without prejudice and according to Policy. But based on last summer's case in Greek edition, I am afraid this is not what the anonymous user aims at. One month is far more than enough time for the article's paragraph to be enriched, completed and documented, following WP principles (see below post to Fut.Perf). So I have to thank you once more.
-
- Although special attention was paid not to breach 3RR, I did made a 4th revert just minutes into the 24-h period: 23:59:35 on 21/12, 17:04:33, 23:21:26 and 23:57:57 on 22/12 (my 02:21:22 edit and last, was to alter thoroughly the phrase's meaning, with a hope that it will be accepted after having had warned him and before reporting the issue). It was a matter of confusion due to the 2-h difference between UTC and local time, but still you have plenty of right. Be sure, though, this is not my way of contributing; a Greek WP block log with a single 24-h penalty last March in more than 4½ years and 7,000 edits as a Wikipedian, speaks for itself.
-
- In addition to the above warning: Stelios, please be aware that, no matter how questionable the statement about the Shamrock symbol and the role of that Irish guy may be, the statement you tried to push into the article to counter it is both (a) heavily ungrammatical English and (b) itself a piece of unsourced WP:OR. This is not the right way of handling the questionable claim. If you think the sources cited for that claim are all unreliable (I take it you consider them a case of what we here call "citogenesis" [33], and you may well have a point about that), then the solution is to form a consensus on the talkpage for removing the entire claim, not to try to neutralize it with a self-made counterargument in the article that is itself unsourced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Hi, Fut.Perf! The fact is that I did not try to push, but to preserve a connected user's edit from continuous deletions by an anonymous one. This is why it is not brought back now that the latter can not remove it anymore. When I happened to notice him deleting the sentence for the first time, it came to my mind that similar incident in gr:WP. On the other hand, you are right about the statement itself appearing to be on the fringe of OR, without having citation. Which actually exists and will be added, along with all 5 theories (not just 3, as mentioned here based on club's site). It is one of these times when disruptive edits have an opposite result to the one intended, i.e providing the perfect reason for an article to be enriched and this was the case last summer in Greek WP, too :) :) :).
-
-
-
- Before reading this discussion yesterday – far more revealing than you can guess or have you no need of imagination knowing Greek/lish? :) –, I just thought that Sherring scenario might have had some reality base, although being the least possible of all. Even now, I am only 95% convinced that it is actually a pseudohistory backed by circular reporting of initial source some WP undocumented edits. I will inform editors of Greek edition so as to join when discussion is to start. Since having no previous experience on such matters, I need further elements from you please:
- 1) discussion will take place in the article's Talk page?
- 2) who is better to start it (you, me, someone else)?
- 3) is it enough just to reach a consensus for retaining/altering/removing the entire paragraph or is there e.g some sort of committee to consult? I mean one that will check and provide us with an official conclusion whether we are facing or not citogenesis.
-
-
-
- Many thanks to you both! And Merry Xmas, in case you feel this way. --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Answering your questions in their respective order:
- Yes, it doesn't require any administrative attention and thus better off on the talk page of the article.
- Anyone, be BOLD.
- No, there's no committee for such purposes. The community will discuss and preferably vote on the issue and then a non-involved admin or user will close the discussion and carry out the outcome. You might want to make it an official RfC, if you please (to get more participation, i.e.). Note, that a small discussion can be overruled but a huge RfC has much lesser chances of that happening.
- Along with that, Merry Christmas to you too! --QEDK (T ❄ C) 10:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- More participation, greater number of opinions, more chances to find the truth. So, it is not just a matter of validation :). Thanks a lot, QEDK, and Merry Christmas! --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Answering your questions in their respective order:
- Many thanks to you both! And Merry Xmas, in case you feel this way. --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
-
The story abt Sherring started when some fans noticed this photo with Spyros Louis from 1906 File:Spyridon Louis, The Olympic Marathon (National Historical Museum, Athens).jpg
Actually all the old officials of Panathinaikos, agree (there are old videos in the archive of ert, the national tv) that Michalis Papazoglou proposed this symbol. He used to wear it, when he was member of a Greek team in Chalkedon, Constantinople (modern Instabul). Greco22 (talk) 12:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hronia polla, Gkreko, kai euhomai oti epithymeis! --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
PA in Persian
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey, this edit contains unbelieved amount PA in it. Can you do something about it? :)
Ladsgroupoverleg 13:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- P.S. I can translate if you want.
:)
Ladsgroupoverleg 13:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)- Google translate gives smth which is very negative against Iran indeed, but I am not feeling comfortable blocking a user based on Google translate. Do we have Persian-speaking admins?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: I guess, since it's two people (three, counting me) already and we've tried it on translation sites (I've checked on a few other translation sites too, to be sure), just revdel and if anything comes up, then maybe discuss and chill? --QEDK (T ❄ C) 15:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter: I've checked previously, and there are no enwiki admins who speak Persian (or at least none who advertise it on their talk page using babel. Brustopher (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Google translate gives smth which is very negative against Iran indeed, but I am not feeling comfortable blocking a user based on Google translate. Do we have Persian-speaking admins?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Traitor" in a BLP article
Please take it to the talk page. This is not something to be discussed here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GreenBeret65 and SheriffIsInTown want to describe Hussain Haqqani as a "traitor" in the lead of this BLP article. [34], [35], [36]. When I point out that it is a conetentious label, their response is that I should get the term added to the list [37]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- I removed the text from the lead. These cats better take it to the talk page: this is a BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- I would also like to point out that it is well-sourced and it was added by GreenBeret65 was reverted by Kautilya3 saying it is unsourced but when i went in to check i found it to be sourced since it was removed describing it unsourced, i reverted him saying that it is sourced, if there was some other reason given for the revert by Kautilya3 then it might have been a different case but at this point i find that text as sourced and the term "traitor" not in the "Words to watch" list. Sheriff | report | 18:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Dude, what are you even saying? --QEDK (T ❄ C) 18:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Please point out what you did not understand and i will try to explain as best as possible, i really thought i was using English language though. Sheriff | report | 19:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Dude, what are you even saying? --QEDK (T ❄ C) 18:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Speaking of English language, the word "traitor" was used with two sources where this word is just not present. A dictionary was used in edit summaries as a justification, but that's just original synthesis. On other words: reinsert that again and be blocked. Max Semenik (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Aren't you supposed to "not to use" the exact words as in the source as it becomes copy violation and write it in your own words or am i understanding copyvio wrong? Sheriff | report | 19:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Probably not, but that's not the problem. You're also not supposed to interpret the sources and come to interpretations that aren't explicitly in them. Especially when it come to biographies of living persons. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Aren't you supposed to "not to use" the exact words as in the source as it becomes copy violation and write it in your own words or am i understanding copyvio wrong? Sheriff | report | 19:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Speaking of English language, the word "traitor" was used with two sources where this word is just not present. A dictionary was used in edit summaries as a justification, but that's just original synthesis. On other words: reinsert that again and be blocked. Max Semenik (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
We are not censors. If someone (and they should be identified as the speaker/writer) says it, and it is their voice it can be reported as their statement or opinion. It can also be disputed if someone says to the contrary. If it is a flat statement of fact then it should not be said. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- If we can do something like that, and I'm not too sure, it should always be "according to xxx he was not loyal to Pakistan". That would at least need consensus between editors I think. But even then I'm not sure if it's ok to repeat accusations by third parties. The source seems to be the website of a newspaper. I think it's problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Crazy idea all, take this to the talk page of the article, where it belongs. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Source is the news piece by a major Pakistani newspaper quoting a well known commission report which declares a Pakistani citizen "not loyal to Pakistan". According to this the source becomes secondary because it is reporting a primary source and it would not be in violation of WP:RS or WP:BLP. I don't see any reason why it should not be mentioned except mere belligerence by a few editors.
- By the way, i like your phone! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
83.220.238.225
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone please revoke talk page for User talk:83.220.238.225 and extend the block? This IP came up with the interesting concept of vandalizing WP:AIV by repeatedly removing the reports of their own vandalism, and is now removing notices from their talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Midas02: Contested WP:RM closure followed by forum-shopping
- Midas02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Talk:Alejandro Villanueva ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)
- Talk:Alejandro Villanueva (disambiguation) ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)
- Reported by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Midas02 contacted me on my talk page[38] to ask me to overturn my closure[39] of a requested move discussion at Talk:Alejandro Villanueva.
The discussion on my talk didn't go well, so I closed it[40] and pointed Midas02 to WP:Move review.
A ping from another editor alerted me that instead of using move review, Midas02 had opened[41] a new RM discussion at Talk:Alejandro Villanueva (disambiguation).
I closed this new discussion[42] on procedural grounds as forum-shopping, and pointing to WP:Move review both in my closing note and in the edit summary.
I also left a message[43] Midas02's talk, again explaining that WP:Move review was still open, but that forum-shopping is not how things are done.
Midas replied[44] at length that I was engaged in "bullying and the abuse of admin rights", and reverted[45] my closure with an edit summary accusing me of "aggressive action".
I reinstated[46] the closure, again linking to WP:MOVEREVIEW in the edit summary and left a further brief note on Midas's talk page[47], again linking to WP:MOVEREVIEW.
Today, Midas02 has again reverted the closure[48], with edit summary "The bullying by BrownHairedGirl will stop now".
I have done my 1 revert, and that's me out. I am not used to a contested closure being regarded as bullying by an admin, but I'll let other admins decide how to proceed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Midas02 notified[49]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- I reverted to the closure again and warned him about edit warring. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately "bullying" has managed to become one of the "I Win words". (Which, in addition to the obvious, means those who use it in that fashion are trivializing actual bullying.) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Good Close - You were right to close this BrownHairedGirl, and you're definetly not bullying him, he's got a case of butthurt, that's all KoshVorlon 16:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, KoshVorlon. All a bit of pity; it might have made an interesting move review.
- I wonder if the editwar warning is sufficient to convey to Midas02 that it's time to use the established process? Hopefully there will now be more eyes on this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Good Close - You were right to close this BrownHairedGirl, and you're definetly not bullying him, he's got a case of butthurt, that's all KoshVorlon 16:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Disruptive user evading infinite ban of former accounts User:WaterIsland resp. User:WaterIsland95
I want to inform you about the case of the disruptive IPs 85.103.155.148 (talk · contribs) and 88.251.102.7 (talk · contribs), possibly also 81.214.42.5 (talk · contribs) used by an editor who is more than obviously evading the infinite ban of WaterIsland95 (talk · contribs) and its previous incarnation as WaterIsland (talk · contribs).
Content-wise, the disagreeements aren't huge. A recent example: the user repeatedly claimed that Finansbank was already owned by Qatari QNB Bank while the purchase is only expected to be completed by Q3/2016, as per the Financial Times source. Other edits by the user are helpful though, so the user seems to be primarily unexperienced and stubborn, rather than bad faithed.
It still happened quite some times that an edit of the user proved controversial, including a number of wrongly sourced files uploaded by User talk:WaterIsland. And whenever an edit proves controversial, the problem can't be resolved as the user proved unable or unwilling to resolve any disagreements by discussion. There is also no apprehension of Wikipedia rules, though carefully briefed on User talk:WaterIsland95.
I really did my best to draw that user into a conversation, but finally failed to get the person to cooperate. When the person finally answered, the answers were derisive rather than cooperative. I have to inform you about the case now, partly in order to protect myself from potential harassing, as the user feels offended from my discussion offers and has stated that "this was just the beginning." I guess we have to block his IP range or find any other way to deal with the problem this user poses and may continue to pose. --PanchoS (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- These three are all Turk Telekom IPs but are from unrelated ranges, hence there's no opportunity for range block. I will block the IPs for a short period and will semi-protect the article Finansbank which appears to be their sole interest at this time. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the stop-gap measure, Diannaa! I reviewed all the edits again, and have to confess that I'm not 100% sure anymore whether these are really edits by the banned WaterIsland (talk · contribs). Finansbank might also have become a honeypot for casual IP contributors, particularly from Turkey. WaterIsland has been focussed so much on Greece topics that the overlap may well be a coincidence. So while semi-protection for the article is a good thing, I guess we need to unblock the IPs. I really apologize for the noise… :/
Regarding the banned WaterIsland, we'll have to wait a few days to see if that user accepts the ban this time, after there has not been any kind of response on my notice. We might want to leave the case open for a few more days to see if yet another reincarnation pops up or not. Best wishes and again sorry, PanchoS (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the stop-gap measure, Diannaa! I reviewed all the edits again, and have to confess that I'm not 100% sure anymore whether these are really edits by the banned WaterIsland (talk · contribs). Finansbank might also have become a honeypot for casual IP contributors, particularly from Turkey. WaterIsland has been focussed so much on Greece topics that the overlap may well be a coincidence. So while semi-protection for the article is a good thing, I guess we need to unblock the IPs. I really apologize for the noise… :/
User:Eeekster is disruptively tagging my user-created photographs as no permission
I have complained about his behavior before but no action was taken. Can I request more decisive action please? Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Could you please provide diffs? BMK (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell (from examing a few of the recent ones), Eeekster is tagging them correctly. All of the images I looked at appeared to be uploaded by someone other than the creator, and they were credited to the subject of the image, not to the creator (who may be the same person, but that is unlikely for photos). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am talking about the self-portrait used on my user page. He has done this consistently to all my photographs. (Most of which aren't self-portraits). See his behavior on File:Union Square chess with spectators.jpg, File:Flushing street vendor under LIRR bridge.jpg, File:Flushing, After the Rain.jpg, among numerous others. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- One tag does not make disruption. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- All three of the images you cite in the previous comment were tagged by Eeekster in October, and have not been touched by that editor since then, after the tags were removed and replaced with an OTRS notice or a license - so these hardly seem relevant now. BMK (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- What I am saying this is repeated disruptive behavior. The tags were repeatedly reinstated (edit-warring behavior) until another administrator intervened. The OTRS tags were in fact unncessary. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- They were originally licensed to begin with. (Creative Commons 3.0, self-produced) Eeekster seemed to have a problem believing they were created by me, simply because I used a full-frame DSLR, a 50mm f/1.4 lens and decent composition. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- I would imagine that the problem with the self-portrait is the question of whether you actually took the picture or not -- for instance by setting up the shot with a tripod and timer and then walking into it -- or whether you had someone else take it, in which case the ownership of the image might be debateable, and you might have to show that it was a work made for you by hire. I think the "self-portrait" question is a rather trivial one, and Eeekster should not -- in general -- be tagging such images for permission, as they are de facto owned by the subject (you). There's no particularly need for Eekster to be quite so pedantic about it that it becomes an issue, unless there are reasons to suspect that something untoward is going on in general. I don't see that as being the case here - but I also don't see any need for any kind of sanction for Eeekster beyond perhaps a word to the wise or, at worst, a mini-trout. BMK (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am talking about the self-portrait used on my user page. He has done this consistently to all my photographs. (Most of which aren't self-portraits). See his behavior on File:Union Square chess with spectators.jpg, File:Flushing street vendor under LIRR bridge.jpg, File:Flushing, After the Rain.jpg, among numerous others. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- BTW, FWIW, I like the current image on your user page better than the previous one. BMK (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- In some cases (but not to any current files uploaded to Wikipedia) I set the settings on my camera (and my lens), set up the lighting systems and off-camera flashes, and ask my friend (a fellow escort) to adjust the focus and press the shutter, giving clear, direct instructions. Who owns it then? ;-)
- For the last image before that, I lost the original RAW file (plus exported JPG) when I had my laptop stolen by ex-boyfriend last year and only had the crappy local versions hosted on my escort ads lol. That's why it looks too oversharpened. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- In answer to your question: under those circumstances, I think that you own it, but it might be necessary (again, if we're being ultra-legalistic about this, which I do not think we have to be) for you to provide a statement from the other person that they were acting completely under your directions, and therefore is not in any way a creator of the photograph, any more than I am a creator of a play because I assist the author and director in editing and mounting it. BMK (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agree on the self-portrait aspect, we shouldn't really doubt that, but we have had issues with what is called "flickrwashing" - people will take high quality photos that are from a press agency and definitely NOT PD or CC, post them to flickr, tag them as CC-BY, call them their own, and then either they or someone else will upload those to commons, hiding the copyvio. For a new-ish editor to do offer high-quality photos, we do have some bit of doubt, and the ORTS step is merely a formality. I would hope that in the future that if you (Yanping) do contribute high resolution photos that the fact that ORTS has demonstrated you have this capability that editors should not doubt that you have the camera equipment to take such photos and this should not be a problem again. --MASEM (t) 23:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- I lost the original OTRS correspondence -- I was flooded with obligations in October and they couldn't locate all my images. My Flickr account has thousands of uploads, I have been a member since 2010, and I have my own photography website with my own domain name. I'm not that new of a member, I just haven't edited Wikipedia since high school and that was under my old male name (which I don't wish to reveal). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- We aren't going to ask you to connect your old account/name to this (zero need to), all I'm saying is that because we on WP have serious concerns about maintaining a free encyclopedia that we are vigilant to make sure that we don't mistag high-quality photos that are not free as free images. Without having the visible tenure of your previous account to go off, the combination of how these photos came to be do set off enough legitimacy alarms. But I'm fully satisified you took them, and the ones lists above are all good. If you upload more photos, I do expect that no one should give you the hassle of claiming you couldn't have possibly taken them or that they don't belong to you, now that we've got enough to go on to know it should be good. You're basically a false positive in our test during vigilance on bad uploads; it happens, I don't think Eeekster was being malicious here, just careful. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- I lost the original OTRS correspondence -- I was flooded with obligations in October and they couldn't locate all my images. My Flickr account has thousands of uploads, I have been a member since 2010, and I have my own photography website with my own domain name. I'm not that new of a member, I just haven't edited Wikipedia since high school and that was under my old male name (which I don't wish to reveal). Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- BTW, FWIW, I like the current image on your user page better than the previous one. BMK (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Tag + 2 disruptive reverts by Eeekster on File:Yanping Nora Soong self-portrait.jpg, despite the fact they were clearly made by me.
- Disruptive tagging on File:Flushing Main St, Kissena Blvd, and 41 Av crowded intersection.jpg
- Tag + 3 disruptive reverts (violation of WP:3RR) on File:Union Square chess with spectators.jpg
- 2 disruptive (re)tags on File:Flushing, After the Rain.jpg
- Disruptive tagging on File:Flushing street vendor under LIRR bridge.jpg
- among many others Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- As far as I can see, these are all from October. Where are the "many others" which are more recent examples? ANd, FWIW, there's no "clearly made by me" about your self-portrait, for the reasons I outlined above -- and isn't that you in the Kissena Blvd. picture? So who took it, and under what conditions, and have you provided proof to OTRS that it was you?
You can certainly keep reiterating your complaint, but unless you've got something more recent, I'm just not seeing where you've got a case for Eeekster to be sanctioned. Perhaps others disagree with that, so I'll withdraw and allow them to comment. BMK (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- This was pre-emptive because I was expecting more reverts by Eeekster (which no one took action with last time). However, if he doesn't try to tag my image as unsourced or unlicensed I won't request sanctions. Also, in my self-portrait, I am holding a camera. The lens is photographing a mirror. (d_i = d_o) The subject *is* the photographer.
- The Kissena Blvd photographs are not of me, they were taken *by* me. They are street photographs. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- For the ones with OTRS tags, leave a message on my talk page here and I'll check them when I get home (I never do OTRS stuff at work). They need to have the ticket number added to them. For everything else, unless he is actually harassing you, there's nothing else which can be done here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, these are all from October. Where are the "many others" which are more recent examples? ANd, FWIW, there's no "clearly made by me" about your self-portrait, for the reasons I outlined above -- and isn't that you in the Kissena Blvd. picture? So who took it, and under what conditions, and have you provided proof to OTRS that it was you?
You can certainly keep reiterating your complaint, but unless you've got something more recent, I'm just not seeing where you've got a case for Eeekster to be sanctioned. Perhaps others disagree with that, so I'll withdraw and allow them to comment. BMK (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)File:Union_Square_chess_with_spectators.jpg states the photo was originally published on flickr. Following the link, there Yanping Soong is claiming an "All right reserved" copyright. Therefore, pending an OTRS email relicensing under a creative commons license, it is a copyright violation from Wikipedia's point of view. The simple solution is simply to creative commons license the photo on flickr -- then when an editor checks the Wiki version of the photo, they'll see it's okay. NE Ent 23:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
BTW, is there a reason why you are not uploading your images to Commons, rather than to here? BMK (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have time to relicense all my images. I adjusted the license on one (the Flushing after the rain image) just to show that I owned it. As a copyright holder, surely I have the right to re-release images under a new license without declaring the change of license on other places that are published? The reason is that I would like to make them free for Wikipedia's use, and free for use in any derivatives and mirrors that incorporate Wikipedia, but I do not want to systematically release all my images as free (because in some cases I have plans for them), sd in some cases I get paid for licensing image use requests by certain people (doesn't involve any of the images affected).
- I prefer they not be uploaded to Commons, for various reasons that I don't have time to explain right now. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- In which case you should probably label them with {{Do not move to Commons|reason=}}. The reason could be "author's request". BMK (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- See [50] — Yanping's Flickr account has explicitly said "I'm also Yanping Nora Soong on Wikipedia", and I've saved that revision with the Internet Archive. Since the same person is in control of both accounts, we have no reason to doubt that the Wikipedia account is able to upload images from the Flickr account using licenses that don't appear on the Flickr account. The allegations of Flickrwashing aren't affected by this, of course. Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, there's a fairly simple way to find out. Upload the image on Google Images and search, check a couple of matches and see ownership (also, some of the matches will just be unauthorized copy of the original but remember to check for anyone claiming to be the original). This process is much simpler on Chrome, download the Image Search Extension, right click on image, search and voila. And, credit me when it's done. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 06:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- See [50] — Yanping's Flickr account has explicitly said "I'm also Yanping Nora Soong on Wikipedia", and I've saved that revision with the Internet Archive. Since the same person is in control of both accounts, we have no reason to doubt that the Wikipedia account is able to upload images from the Flickr account using licenses that don't appear on the Flickr account. The allegations of Flickrwashing aren't affected by this, of course. Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- You are of course not required to use the same licence on Flickr as you provide here. With the information on Flickr, I think it should be clear to most people that you are the same person as the Flickr account holder, so any licence differences don't matter. However it's always possible someone may miss the declaration. If this happens, I suggest you simply point out to them the Flickr declaration.
I agree that I'm not seeing anything malicious, or even majorly wrong with the October stuff. In particular, I don't quite get what you mean by [51] being clearly made by you. Considering the composition of the shot, it doesn't look so much like it was taken with a tripod. With this and the other details (appearing on other sites etc), it's understandable there may have been concern.
I have much more sympathy for the recent case [52] since as you mentioned it does look likely that it was a self portrait. So I'm not sure the tagging should have happened. Still mistakes happen and we have to be very careful about copyright issues. It would also help if you resolve at least one case of a self-portrait (possibly you already did and it just hasn't been updates), then people can go off that.
BTW, I'm assuming you understand that by freely licencing your images, you are freely licencing those images point blank. While it may not be that likely many will find them, particularly if they are only on en.wikipedia (rather than commons), it remains the case that anyone anywhere is free to use them for any purpose (including commercial) in accordance with the licence terms and it doesn't matter if they are unrelated to wikipedia. (For images with identifable people including yourself, they may also have to ensure they comply with any privacy and similar requirements.)
Likewise, while most people will respect your request not to move a file to commons (see Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for example), there's no legal or clear policy barrier (well barring ones unrelated to you, like if other stuff in the image may be copyrighted). If your image is regarded as important to other wikipedias or other wikimedia projects, it's possible someone may do so.
- In which case you should probably label them with {{Do not move to Commons|reason=}}. The reason could be "author's request". BMK (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
MarkBernstein and insinuations
Administrator action has already occurred: parties warned by Mark Arsten on WP:EWAN3 NE Ent 02:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I fully expected to be blocked at AIV in the thread where MarkBernstein said this. Given that I had exceeded the bright line, I had no defence in policy. If someone now wants to over-rule the decision made by Mark Arsten then I have no problem with that. However, I am fed up of seeing MarkBernstein insinuating rubbish such as he did there and I'm fed up of his soapboxing and treading of the line with his routinely acerbic comments and edit summaries. I would like someone to review the general situation, not merely that specific episode.
There are people here who can probably confirm that I live in an area that has one of the most dense populations of Jewish people in the UK, and I pretty much always have done. It really doesn't help matters when someone alludes to anti-Semitism in that context, however cleverly they word it, nor is it necessarily the case that someone called Bernstein is in fact Jewish anyway (or, for that matter, that I am not). It is this playing with words, as he also did in the same comment with regard to my supposed (but in fact entirely incorrect) association with Gamergate people.
It needs to stop and in fact it needed to stop months ago. How much more of this stuff must people take before his clever use of semantics is recognised for what it is, ie: a POV-pushing smear campaign on a massive scale where any angle will be exploited, however tenuous. I doubt that the Gamergaters are any better but I'm not affiliated with either "side" and if the only solution is to ignore the article etc then the outcome will be what it is now: a crock of shit unworthy of an encyclopaedia. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- So why not just say what you meant by "your people" and "lawyering"?Sir Joseph (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) :I am very sorry that Sitush took my remark as he did.
- A correspondent has urged me that “I think it's in your best interests to withdraw your comment and perhaps apologize, because it was over the line. There is no question that you have been subjected to horrific anti-semetic harassment by gamergate, but you can't assume that everyone you clash with on that article has been sent there by gamergate HQ.”
- I am at this moment very angry with that correspondent, but against my better judgment I will comply. But I do not believe that Sitush was sent by Gamergate HQ.
- This correspondent has previously warned me that Situs’s displeasure is so powerful and so influential that none can withstand it. Extortion cannot be resisted in such circumstances, and here my acquiescence is demanded. I therefore meekly apologize and beg your pardon.
- If you will excuse me, I have a dinner party to prepare. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- To paraphrase the wit and wisdom of Kimberly "Sweet Brown" Wilkins, ain't nobody got time for this! There's only one question relevant to this thread: Sitush, where can you find a good bagel in your area? Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
So this is a crock of shit also. Can't you lot see what MarkBernstein is doing even when he does it in this very thread? Useless, the lot of you. - Sitush (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sitush is correct—the linked comment in the OP and the comments above show that MarkBernstein is massively misinformed and obnoxious. Sitush may be on the wrong bus at gamergate controversy, but the smear that anti-Semitism might be involved is pathetic. Perhaps MB moves in circles where anti-Semitism lurks in every comment, but quite apart from assume good faith, the "people" comment makes no sense if interpreted in that fashion, whereas it matches the thoughts in the talk page argument which concerns those on each side of a dispute, and where "SPA" and "people" are mentioned. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Caution review needed
Resolved. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Having reviewed multiple faulty speedy nominations from a new editor, OOblivion, I have concerns that this caution may not have been merited, especially since it was issued on OOblivion's second day on the wiki. There's nothing visible on MD's edit history to indicate one way or the other. Could someone with the tools please check. Bazj (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- This does not need reporting here. There are many ways of telling new users they are not ready for NPP. I do it all the time. Stiging them with an ANI so soon will lose them for us. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- I don't seem to have conveyed my concern very well since both OOblivion and Kudpung have commented. My concern is that MorganDrear may have a caution on his record which may not be deserved. If it wasn't deserved it ought to be removed. Since stuff has been deleted how else (where else) can I get an admin to check it? Bazj (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Continued addition of unsourced birth place
@Hackinghobb: has been continually changing Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, George Harrison and John Lennon birth places. These changes are against accepted consensus and without sources, despite multiple warnings. User refuses to discuss or source their claims. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is a content dispute, but it seems as if the guy has a valid argument that Merseyside wasn't founded as a county until 1974, so the various Beatles couldn't have been born in that county, since it didn't exist at the time. It would seem as if something on the order of "Lancashire (now Merseyside)" would be a suitable compromise. BMK (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've left a message on the editor's talk page. BMK (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- No-one was claiming Merseyside was correct? That was just suggested by User:Hackinghobb's misleading edit summaries? There are no other Liverpools in England, nor anywhere in UK. So any county is redundant. Unless there is some infobox policy convention on counties, I don't see it helps the reader at all. A county might be added in the article main body for good measure, but again this seems redundant in the case of the Fab Scouse Four. A different consensus could be established at the Talk Page if need be, if their "Lancastrian-ness" was deemed so important. So this is a just a content dispute. The contentious part is the user's lack of engagement and discussion with other editors, as BMK has rightly pointed out. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've left a message on the editor's talk page. BMK (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Since the dispute seems to be about whether the birthplace should just be "Liverpool, England" or "Liverpool, Lancashire, England", surely it should be possible to come to some sort of acceptable compromise, as Liverpool is a sufficiently large place that adding a county (whether Lancashire as it was when the Beatles were born, or Merseyside as it is now) is superfluous. The Royal Mail has been trying to discourage the use of counties in postal addresses for something close to 40 years by now. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with you in regards to a compromise being available, but I would point out that "location" is not necessarily the same thing as "address", so the Royal Mail's preference for no county in addresses is not really relevant. I frequently come across this problem in regard to places in Manhattan, the mailing address for which is "New York, New York". That, and the well known song by the same name, have encouraged people to use "New York, New York" as a location, when it is simply a mailing address. One can say "Manhattan, New York City, New York" or "New York County, New York" or variations on those (I prefer the latter as being the clearest), but the use of the postal address (and the zip code, which is really completely irrelevant) is not the location of the place. BMK (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe WP:RSN would be a better place for this issue? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with you in regards to a compromise being available, but I would point out that "location" is not necessarily the same thing as "address", so the Royal Mail's preference for no county in addresses is not really relevant. I frequently come across this problem in regard to places in Manhattan, the mailing address for which is "New York, New York". That, and the well known song by the same name, have encouraged people to use "New York, New York" as a location, when it is simply a mailing address. One can say "Manhattan, New York City, New York" or "New York County, New York" or variations on those (I prefer the latter as being the clearest), but the use of the postal address (and the zip code, which is really completely irrelevant) is not the location of the place. BMK (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- They've all been WP:FAs for eons with just "Liverpool, England", so stick to that. There's no need to get into ceremonial county, administrative county, historic county, England, United Kingdom, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Known Universe, etc., because as noted the counties changed in the 1970s or whenever. Let the FAs stand as they were. Trout the user, warn them, and block them if they persist. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
IP editor - block evading comes back to taunt blocking admin
(non-admin closure) Original & second IP blocked by Kuru. WCMemail 22:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
190.45.71.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP Long term abusive editor, currently blocked for one year, a month later comes back to taunt the blocking admin. [[53] WCMemail 19:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- [54] Diff of one year range block. WCMemail 19:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- [55] Removal of ANI notice, in case anyone complains I didn't send one. WCMemail 19:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP range on a revert edit war
(non-admin closure) Both IPs blocked with thanks to Bethnaught. The IPs shouldn't even get coal in their stocking tonight. MarnetteD|Talk 20:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would an admin take a look at 81.170.6.182 and , 81.170.9.201 both geolocate to the same area. Just started a series of revert wars targeted at a couple of editors (one of which is me). Ignoring warnings on the talk page. Probably someone taking out a grudge or two while on a christmas holiday with a different computer. Thanks ----Snowded TALK 19:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have reverted a few edits and given them warnings. Now to see if an admin will act. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Both blocked. 182 got a longer block as that is the currently active one. Clearly the same person using multiple IPs to edit war, making disingenuous edit summaries including some personal attacks and unacceptable slurs based on mental health. BethNaught (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.