Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use |
|
Noticeboard archives
Contents
- 1 Benjaminkirsc reverting my edits to My Sims Agents, adding a copyvio back to the page in the process
- 2 Karldmartini
- 3 An unresponsive user?
- 4 Yet another editor using an IP sock
- 5 rev war with users NorthBySouthBaranof & Pepperbeast
- 6 User Wikideas1 uploading screen grabs from the internet without proper copyright attribution
- 7 Disruptive editing on Second_Battle_of_Ras_al-Ayn_(2019) by KasimMejia
- 8 Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization)
- 9 Asim143 and titles
- 10 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramesh Nagaraj Rao (2nd nomination)
- 11 Asim143 moving draftified article back to mainspace
- 12 64.8.128.0/18
- 13 Topic ban violation by KHMELNYTSKYIA
- 14 Tetsou TheIronman
- 15 IiKkEe's stylistic changes that leave articles, especially medical articles, in an inaccurate state and/or state of disarray
- 16 Rangeblock and cleanup needed
- 17 Disputed and WP:BITEy block of new editor
- 18 Outing
Benjaminkirsc reverting my edits to My Sims Agents, adding a copyvio back to the page in the process
Hello! This happened last month but I only noticed this now. Benjaminkirsc undid my complete rewrite of My Sims Agents, citing that the information I added was "unnecessary" and had "possible incorrect grammar". However, when they did this they failed to realize that the whole reason that I rewrote the page is because the version they reverted the page to is a fairly obvious copyvio, which was mostly unsourced, and was literally written like a sales pitch, because it was one. Normally, this would just be something that I would warn a user about, but I realized that they had been reported to ANI once before. I'm honestly not sure how they could miss that they were reverting the page to a version that was literally an advertisement. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've been keeping an eye on Benjaminkirsc's edit since the last AN/I visit (I was hoping to see improvement), and while they've managed to stop swearing so much in edit summaries, they're still having issues with edit warring and civilly disagreeing with other editors (including a handful of undos with the edit summary "wrong," like Special:Diff/920805947 and Special:Diff/920805947. Their reactions to others on their talk page have some communications issues as well, with very brusque replies and no further engagement. creffett (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- FYI: the first dif you posted is of an edit by Zacharyalejandro, not Benjaminkirsc. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- TheAwesomeHwyh, oops, I always have trouble getting the right diff ID, it's probably the next diff. Thanks for pointing it out, fixed. creffett (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- FYI: the first dif you posted is of an edit by Zacharyalejandro, not Benjaminkirsc. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I feel that the copyvio is wrong Benjaminkirsc (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- So... then why did you revert back to it? TheAwesomeHwyh 01:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- Because it was a problem Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- ??? What? You reverted to a copyvio... because the copyvio was a problem? TheAwesomeHwyh 22:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- Because it was a problem Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Proposing indef block: I just took a quick look into their edit history and found these summaries showing some serious WP:CIVILITY issues. An where an IP user literally only added the number "90" to the article, which could've easily been a mistake, was reverted with the summary "WHAT WRONG WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". Another, where another IP user added the wrong release date, was reverted with the summary of "YOU ARE WRONG!" Both of those edits were done after this AN/I report was filed yesterday / earlier today (depending on timezone). TheAwesomeHwyh 22:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's not related thouogh. Do that somewhere else. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand. This page is for all of your behaviors, not just the one mentioned in the section title. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- I can undertand what your saying but, this is talking about My Sims Agents. If you want talk about that, please let me know in my talk page. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- No, as I've already said this page is for everything related to your edits. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Benjaminkirsc, you're missing the point. Having your attitude and competence repeatedly discussed on the noticeboards is NOT normal. How many editors are following your edits to make sure you're not going off the rails yet again? If you continue as you are, then sooner or later the community will decide that the value of your contributions is not worth the cost of watching out for, and correcting, your mishaps. Cabayi (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Cabayi et al. Benjaminkirsc, you were warned about your behaviour especially the way you were dealing with vandals and others in edit summaries. You seem to have cut out on your "fuck" and stuff but some of your edit summaries still leave a lot to be desired. The fact that some of the examples highlighted don't seem to be clear cut vandalism is even more reason to be concerned. In this case [1], your edit summary was okay. However as I pointed out your edit seems to be wrong. Two of the most recent sources support Imagine Publishing as the publisher, so does the image of the cover in the article. If you are going around yelling at people for being wrong, there's a good chance you are eventually, if you haven't already, going to yell at someone when you were the one who is wrong. Think about that for a minute. Note when I reverted you, I did not see the need to say "WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU, THE 2014 SOURCE CLEARLY SAYS IMAGINE PUBLISHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". It does not help you or anyone else. Not really the place for this but since I brought it up here, it seems Future plc acquired Imagine in October 2016. So the current digital only edition is I assume published by Future plc although it may also be published by Imagine depending on whether they maintained that as a subbrand which I don't know. This was after the print edition ended in April 2016, which suggests the print one was published by Imagine to the end, which is supported by the source suggesting to buy it from the Imagine store. Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: Good thing I didn't yell or curse there. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Cabayi et al. Benjaminkirsc, you were warned about your behaviour especially the way you were dealing with vandals and others in edit summaries. You seem to have cut out on your "fuck" and stuff but some of your edit summaries still leave a lot to be desired. The fact that some of the examples highlighted don't seem to be clear cut vandalism is even more reason to be concerned. In this case [1], your edit summary was okay. However as I pointed out your edit seems to be wrong. Two of the most recent sources support Imagine Publishing as the publisher, so does the image of the cover in the article. If you are going around yelling at people for being wrong, there's a good chance you are eventually, if you haven't already, going to yell at someone when you were the one who is wrong. Think about that for a minute. Note when I reverted you, I did not see the need to say "WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU, THE 2014 SOURCE CLEARLY SAYS IMAGINE PUBLISHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". It does not help you or anyone else. Not really the place for this but since I brought it up here, it seems Future plc acquired Imagine in October 2016. So the current digital only edition is I assume published by Future plc although it may also be published by Imagine depending on whether they maintained that as a subbrand which I don't know. This was after the print edition ended in April 2016, which suggests the print one was published by Imagine to the end, which is supported by the source suggesting to buy it from the Imagine store. Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Benjaminkirsc, you're missing the point. Having your attitude and competence repeatedly discussed on the noticeboards is NOT normal. How many editors are following your edits to make sure you're not going off the rails yet again? If you continue as you are, then sooner or later the community will decide that the value of your contributions is not worth the cost of watching out for, and correcting, your mishaps. Cabayi (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- No, as I've already said this page is for everything related to your edits. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- I can undertand what your saying but, this is talking about My Sims Agents. If you want talk about that, please let me know in my talk page. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand. This page is for all of your behaviors, not just the one mentioned in the section title. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
TheAwesomeHwyh, your report begs the question, why didn't you tag the copyvio with {{copyvio-revdel}} to clear it out of the article's history? Why haven't you still? Cabayi (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Cabayi I don't know, actually, sorry. I've done it now. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks TheAwesomeHwyh. Cabayi (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support indefinite block or community ban. The editor does not appear to understand they should not revert to copyvios and has shown little ability to understand the feedback they've been offered. Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Very weak support for CIR block - it's pretty clear that this editor just isn't getting it, if you look at their talk page, responses here, and responses in the previous ANI thread. I'm reluctant to block here, but I'm not sure what other options are on the table when they just don't seem to understand why their actions are inappropriate, and I suspect that if nothing is done we'll be back here in another month or two. I'm kind of perplexed by this editor's actions, to be honest - usually in these kinds of cases it's not listening, but my read here is more "not understanding" than "deliberately ignoring." creffett (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support indef block. It seems like his MO is to do something bad and then refuse to understand the negative feedback. If you look at his talk page it is filled with final warnings for the same conduct going back several months, and his responses have been mostly glib one word answers or one-liners. There's no sign that he is really getting better. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support indefinite block. I've sorta been keeping an eye on him for a while and have greatly noticed his refusal to work with others and deciding to ignore site policy. Him yelling at other users through edit summaries (and the occasional cussing) don't help his case either. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 16:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support a REASONABLE-length block Near as I can tell, he's never been blocked before An indef block is a significant first block that isn't generally supported by precedent. Anything from up to a week is fine by me; otherwise, oppose. Buffs (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Good point. I didn't realize that he hasn't been blocked before. I can see your point about him not getting a block before, and frankly I'm surprised since I've seen people get in trouble for less severe misconduct and IDHT issues in the past. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I suspect we're dealing with a lack of competence due to youth. A block for a couple years wouldn't be necessarily a bad thing. WP has plenty of editors who were a pain in the ass but after maturing for a few years they became very productive editors. Blackmane (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support reasonable block. I agree with Buffs, a permanent ban is a bit over the top. I've had limited dealings with Benjaminkirsc, so take my opinion for what it's worth. When he removed some info about a mobile port from a video game article (Special:Diff/918276204), I reverted and said he needed to use the talk page to explain his deletion (Special:Diff/918278677). Which he did. I explained his reasoning from flawed, and that was pretty much the end of it. So he is certainly capable of listening to others and taking advice. And I have no reason to believe he's malicious in any way. However, I'm inclined to agree with Blackmane, I do get the impression that he's very young, so a block of a few months/years might not be a bad idea. Bertaut (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Courtesy: this is the talk page discussion Bertaut is talking about. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm naïve, but I don't see how a block of a few years (!) is that much kinder or gentler than a 'nuclear' indef block. If anything, it might be better to offer the guy mentorship or something instead of a block. If he's really just immature but could be contrusctive and in good faith this might be a better option. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Problem is, we did offer mentorship (and a run through the CVU course) during the last AN/I discussion, Benjaminkirsc didn't engage with the offer (as you can see from the above discussions, part of the problem is that they basically don't engage in discussions at all). creffett (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's fair. The distinction between an indefinite block and a block for several years does sort of escape me though, but I'll defer to your judgment on that of course. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- A block for several years expires automatically when the several years is up. An indefinite block doesn't expire ever, but must be removed based on some other condition (discussion with the blocking admin or a successful community appeal, usually), which can be a time of a few minutes or many years depending on the circumstances. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support indef block No reason to believe a short block would resolve the issues. Disruptive editors with clean block logs get indeffed all the time. Hijiri 88 (?やや) 11:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Karldmartini
Based upon the clear consensus at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Karldmartini, I believe that Karldmartini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) should be topic banned from adding product images that he has created to any Wikipedia article, but at the same time allowed to suggest on article talk pages that the images be added. I can repeat what was said at COIN here if required, but I think it is easier to simply read it there. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support proposed topic ban. In what way does for example an animated gif with a rotating random suitcase, a rotating random shoe, such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (and they're far from the only animated shoe gifs that they have uploaded and added to articles), or a rotating random vibrator (added to Vibrator (sex toy)) improve the encyclopaedia? Or an animated gif of a rotating oven ready chicken that has been added to articles on multiple language versions of Wikipedia, including en-WP... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thomas.W - Honestly, those gifs are kind of cool. I don't know if they necessarily belong on Wikipedia though but I thought they were pretty neat. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Being "cool" and "neat" doesn't automatically make things suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- No arguments here. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Karldmartini just responded at COIN, so we may want to see how that discussion turns out before doing anything here. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Guy Macon (talk · contribs) - I don't know if you had a chance to see this on the WP:COIN page, but it looks like he thinks that you withdrew the initial offer that you made about the restriction on adding images directly to articles, but if you're OK with reinstating that offer and he is going to abide by it then this thread might end up being resolved in the near future. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Karldmartini just responded at COIN, so we may want to see how that discussion turns out before doing anything here. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- No arguments here. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Being "cool" and "neat" doesn't automatically make things suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- Guy Macon - As I read it he agreed to the stipulation that you presented some time ago, and admits that he inadvertently violated it.
Guy does have a point though...I did agree to firstly suggest they be added to "proposed changes' and yes, I did break this rule...quite flagrantly it seems! You may not believe me but I completely forgot about it. It was in May. It is now October.
. Reading between the lines I think he does intend to follow that rule and simply slipped up in one instance, but will not do so again going forward. I don't think that he should be topic banned from suggesting images in article talk for other editors to consider and implement -- only topic banned from adding the images to articles himself. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)- "...topic banned from adding product images that he has created to any Wikipedia article, but at the same time allowed to suggest on article talk pages that the images be added." is the exact opposite of "...topic banned from suggesting images in article talk"
- I don't buy the "reading between the lines". User:Ronz warned him in February of 2016. User:Kendall-K1 warned him in March of 2018. User:JSFarman warned him in March of 2018, I warned him in May of 2019. User:Johnuniq warned him in October of 2019. The edit summaries of his last two rotating image additions[3][4] made it crystal clear that he was well aware of the fact that multiple editors had disagreed with his previous rotating image additions and that he decided to do it anyway because they are wrong and he is right. And now, when I asked him for an explicit commitment to stop the objectionable behavior,[5][6] he went silent. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thomas.W - Honestly, those gifs are kind of cool. I don't know if they necessarily belong on Wikipedia though but I thought they were pretty neat. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- So, close this and open a new report the next time he does it, close this with a warning, or impose a topic ban? I am good with any of these choices. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
An unresponsive user?
Rahmadiabsyah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) An ip had tried to reach out to this user about adding some tv show's episode listing, on Black Clover (season 3) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). And I gave advice to say WP:CRYSTALBALL. But the ip went to talk to me about this user. That their mainly unresponsive on their talk page. On a concern that if adding a tv show's episode too early, it doesn't match the refs/ or sources it presents. Per WP:VERIFY. (Example; from last week, here and the ip's response and from today, this and the ip's second response.)
- Before, I had a concern about this user because of WP:SPLIT concerns and that the user may have been reading from wikia/ fandom without adding sources about a new tv season. Or that wikia/ fandom falls under the rule/ guideline WP:USERG. Then starting from here (note; In the edit summary I might have been irritated. Because leading up to the split, I kept having page notices from this user.) In which I supplied the WP:SPLIT or WP:COPYWITHIN. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Update: Another issue that the ip had a concern of, on my talk page: Is that, is there a language barrier for Rahmadiabsyah for not replying. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have a comment, when I started the concern a week ago. Detailing that, what if you add something too soon. But no one knows if the content is verifiable until the show has aired. Then until it does, I am thinking that Rahmadiabsyah to stop adding it. But since then there has been no answer from the user. Until today. 99.203.50.212 (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Tainted-wingsz - Does the response from Rahmadiabsyah here resolve your problem? 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- You can't really ask a user to stop. But they're sort of still unresponsive. And maybe answering vague messages, then who knows. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- To 38.142.216.106, it felt like a weak response. I was thinking that the ip 99.203.50.212 earlier wanted to know where can the episode's be found at. Other than here;[1] But in the last two weeks Rahmadiabsyah was silent on replying to the ip. Because every Monday the ref or the tv's schedule updates and it sometimes may tell the episode's name in advance. But in the past it only shows what date is it airing at. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- For the message, I still kept looking. If you go to here;[2] and press the; ????クク????? it will show you the episode listing and on Monday at 15:00 (UTC) or a little later. That's when the tv schedule has been updated. (That would show the new episode's name in an one week advance. And the episode that's airing later at night.) Then a few hours before it gets updated, Rahmadiabsyah was adding the name to the episode in. So right after I removed it. From that until the tv schedule was updated, is this WP:OR? 99.203.50.212 (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's a little hard to prove. If it's not Monday anymore? The main point is. What if your adding something and it could wrong. As some tv show didn't go in chronological order. That's one reason to wait. Which I think you wish for Rahmadiabsyah to follow. But, if there not very responsive and doesn't edit much. So since there's no action taken for the moment. Then let this be. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- For the message, I still kept looking. If you go to here;[2] and press the; ????クク????? it will show you the episode listing and on Monday at 15:00 (UTC) or a little later. That's when the tv schedule has been updated. (That would show the new episode's name in an one week advance. And the episode that's airing later at night.) Then a few hours before it gets updated, Rahmadiabsyah was adding the name to the episode in. So right after I removed it. From that until the tv schedule was updated, is this WP:OR? 99.203.50.212 (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- To 38.142.216.106, it felt like a weak response. I was thinking that the ip 99.203.50.212 earlier wanted to know where can the episode's be found at. Other than here;[1] But in the last two weeks Rahmadiabsyah was silent on replying to the ip. Because every Monday the ref or the tv's schedule updates and it sometimes may tell the episode's name in advance. But in the past it only shows what date is it airing at. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have a comment, when I started the concern a week ago. Detailing that, what if you add something too soon. But no one knows if the content is verifiable until the show has aired. Then until it does, I am thinking that Rahmadiabsyah to stop adding it. But since then there has been no answer from the user. Until today. 99.203.50.212 (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Short opinion
Question, I have a lingering thought. Since Rahmadiabsyah does edit and adds the next episode title. Then the IP may repeat this, removes it, and tries to ask Rahmadiabsyah again. And they don't reply swiftly. So what do we do with the user then? Unblue box (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- If I wasn't clearer earlier ago, I was digging more into this. If it's around Monday at 15:00 (UTC) and until the show; Black Clover has finished airing on Tuesday at 9:55 (UTC). There is a short timeline where you can find the next episode's name. But during that time what happens if it doesn't say anything about it. Then in the last two weeks the IP removed Rahmadiabsyah's edits because the ref,[1] doesn't tell what is the next episode's name and the IP remove it. Then asked Rahmadiabsyah, about this inquiry. Before the show's tv schedule has been updated on Monday at 15:00 (UTC) or later on. Then it raises a question of mine, if Rahmadiabsyah doesn't edit often and doesn't reply to messages when the IP had a concern about this two weeks ago. Is the user being unresponsive and what do you do with that? Nor if this editing pattern would continue. Then next the IP went to Tainted-wingsz about this concern. Since he is one of the main editors on Black Clover. Unblue box (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Unblue box, Users are expected to engage in communication per WP:CIR. If a user refuses to engage, report them here, and provide as evidence all attempts to engage with them. Often those users will get a short block to get them to engage, and if they don't talk, the blocks get longer and longer.
- As a side note, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here in general, perhaps something got lost in translation. Are you saying that Rahmadiabsyah isn't engaging? What are their problem edits? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I was trying to get at, well summarize the above messages. That there is a way to find the tv show's episode, but there's a chance that it can be wrong. Then since Rahmadiabsyah isn't responding, that apposed a problem. As the IP tried to talk on here, in the relating edit and this second edit relating to this. Leading up to the ani notice. Then after those edits there was a vague answer from Rahmadiabsyah. So the IP and Tainted-wingsz tried to explain this to Rahmadiabsyah. Then after still no answers from them. Unblue box (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note, I fear that when it's Monday. This might happen again. If Rahmadiabsyah added the new episode's title again and 99.203.50.212 removes it. Then this problem drags on into a third week. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Ok. If there's nothing else going on, but it leaves WP:CIR concerns that's left now. Why did it take two weeks for Rahmadiabsyah to reply? I still wonder if we should just "wait and see" next? 99.203.50.212 (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't feel if I'm premature here? Rahmadiabsyah just added some stuff to here and I still wanted a reply. Is the person ignoring what's going on for almost three weeks now? 99.203.50.212 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Copied from here Tainted-wingsz (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- In a lengthy message from 99.203.50.212 they suggest that, if Rahmadiabsyah still doesn't reply because of WP:CIR. It's clear that they edit, but doesn't reply back. Can we try two days giving Rahmadiabsyah a break. Then thereafter is up to anyone's guess. Unblue box (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't feel if I'm premature here? Rahmadiabsyah just added some stuff to here and I still wanted a reply. Is the person ignoring what's going on for almost three weeks now? 99.203.50.212 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Copied from here Tainted-wingsz (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Ok. If there's nothing else going on, but it leaves WP:CIR concerns that's left now. Why did it take two weeks for Rahmadiabsyah to reply? I still wonder if we should just "wait and see" next? 99.203.50.212 (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note, I fear that when it's Monday. This might happen again. If Rahmadiabsyah added the new episode's title again and 99.203.50.212 removes it. Then this problem drags on into a third week. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I was trying to get at, well summarize the above messages. That there is a way to find the tv show's episode, but there's a chance that it can be wrong. Then since Rahmadiabsyah isn't responding, that apposed a problem. As the IP tried to talk on here, in the relating edit and this second edit relating to this. Leading up to the ani notice. Then after those edits there was a vague answer from Rahmadiabsyah. So the IP and Tainted-wingsz tried to explain this to Rahmadiabsyah. Then after still no answers from them. Unblue box (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b "エ?ソ?? ????クク?????|???東京ア??公式". TV Tokyo (in Japanese). Retrieved October 22, 2019.
- ^ "TV Tokyo timetable". TV Tokyo (in Japanese). Retrieved October 22, 2019.
Yet another editor using an IP sock
- Chad The Goatman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Recent contributions show a striking similarity of interests. Editing as an IP is not proscribed per se, but the user alternates between IP and the account in an edit war. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- There is no doubt whatever that this is one person, who has also used the IP address 98.27.17.189 in the past, but apart from the one incident linked by Incnis Mrsi I have not seen any edits which could be regarded as abusive use of editing with and without logging in. (However, there are many hundreds of edits, and I can't guarantee there aren't more problem edits that I haven't seen). 98.27.17.104 is currently subject to a CheckUser block. I shall post a message to Chad The Goatman advising him not to alternate IP editing with logged in editing, especially when editing one article. For now, I think there is nothing else to be done, but of course I will be willing to reconsider that if future editing shows further problems. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 11:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with JBW's comment and observation here. The different IP addresses used look to be in-line with a typical IP change that Charter customers will see happen once in awhile (dynamic IP allocation). Unless more evidence presents itself, I wouldn't call this intentional. A message to the user is a good start here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
rev war with users NorthBySouthBaranof & Pepperbeast
- NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Pepperbeast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- J. Sketter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Paternity fraud ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hi.
I seem to be in a rev war with users NorthBySouthBaranof & Pepperbeast over the article Paternity_fraud. Also NorthBySouthBaranof's talk page. Care to take look? Thanks. If I here should inform NorthBySouthBaranof please say. --J. Sketter (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- J. Sketter, say. In the meantime, stop edit warring. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Also, RS is not an "empty claim". It's how we work. I am beginning to think that there are some issues here--pertaining to OR, RS, BLP, and gender matters. Weird claims like "A woman can't cheat by mistake" bother me--and have you never heard of how King Arthur was conceived? I'm about to run to class and I wouldn't be surprised to find you topic banned by the time I get back. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Gentle reminder that you are required to notify all users that you are reporting to WP:ANI, as I have just done for NorthBySouthBaranof and Pepperbeast. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think that J. Sketter is here to push an agenda, and that agenda includes misgendering subjects of articles, such as Zoe Quinn. "It is, we can mention she either wants or really thinks she has many persons in a single woman's body. But I guess there's no RS for her schizophrenia." and "Quinn's quest for plural noun is attention seeking or self-marketing" are particularly fun gems. They also refer to DS notices as "spam". --Jorm (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- The OP's history at False accusations of rape is also particularly interesting for context given the similarities to the current dispute. --Jayron32 16:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have added userlinks and pagelinks at the top of this report. Thanks to the IP editor for notifying NBSB and Pepperbeast. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Goodness gracious. Seems to me that the OP is someone who is WP:NOTHERE.--WaltCip (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- I just wait some of the admins to come to the real issue here. This heavy targeting by some block of users is interesting and I'm naturally flattered! As I see I'm against, let me count... 5 named users and 1 IP. I do count the 2 admins as nonpartial ones. Anyways, I return to this tomorrow I believe. So I can deal with every item in order. --J. Sketter (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry I'm late to the party, but just wanted to concur with Jorm's comments. J. Sketter seems to fancy himself some kind of gender defender and has an obvious axe to grind. PepperBeast (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- I just wait some of the admins to come to the real issue here. This heavy targeting by some block of users is interesting and I'm naturally flattered! As I see I'm against, let me count... 5 named users and 1 IP. I do count the 2 admins as nonpartial ones. Anyways, I return to this tomorrow I believe. So I can deal with every item in order. --J. Sketter (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Goodness gracious. Seems to me that the OP is someone who is WP:NOTHERE.--WaltCip (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think that J. Sketter is here to push an agenda, and that agenda includes misgendering subjects of articles, such as Zoe Quinn. "It is, we can mention she either wants or really thinks she has many persons in a single woman's body. But I guess there's no RS for her schizophrenia." and "Quinn's quest for plural noun is attention seeking or self-marketing" are particularly fun gems. They also refer to DS notices as "spam". --Jorm (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- J. Sketter - To clarify, I'm not against you. My only involvement was to notify the users you referenced of this thread, which is a mandatory requirement for anyone who posts here. Please don't lump me into any kind of conspiracy theory or accuse me of bias just because I followed a simple neutral rule that is posted at the top of the page. Thanks. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think a topic ban from gender matters is the least we should do here.
Oh, J. Sketter, you said you were waiting on us to get to the "real issue". Well, that's easy. You were edit warring. You removed a bunch of content that was strongly sourced, you were reverted, you reverted, you were reverted, you reverted again, you were reverted by another editor. You didn't post on the talk page until two hours later, and that post started with an insult: "As so often some editors like to debate for the joy of debating." So, what I see here is a couple of infractions, all of which are blockworthy already--edit warring, disruptive editing (against consensus of at least two editors), vandalism (removal of sourced content), lack of good faith (claiming they're just reverting for the sake of reverting. So I'll be happy to give you a warning for that: do not do any of those things again or you will be blocked. OK?
But the real real issue is your apparent agenda-driven edits which fly in the face of various guidelines we have, and that is what you invited scrutiny of when you posted here, where I assume you were hoping to get those other two editors punished. We refer to this as the boomerang effect. And I reiterate that a topic ban on gender, very broadly defined, is a good thing for the project. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not in a place where I can dig too deeply, but it looks to me like this editor is having problems in the area covered by the GamerGate set of discretionary sanctions, so pretty sure unilateral administrative topic bans (among other things) are fair game here. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 18:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- There is no article more deeply affected by the GamerGate sanctions than Zoe Quinn, with perhaps the exception of Gamergate controversy, so yes. They are absolutely covered by that.--Jorm (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's a good point. I don't know if this user's conduct is necessarily driven by GG (though it's plausible) but the article itself definitely falls within the scope.GPL93 (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Even if not, "gender matters" is within the broadly-construed scope of the GG sanction. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's a good point. I don't know if this user's conduct is necessarily driven by GG (though it's plausible) but the article itself definitely falls within the scope.GPL93 (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- There is no article more deeply affected by the GamerGate sanctions than Zoe Quinn, with perhaps the exception of Gamergate controversy, so yes. They are absolutely covered by that.--Jorm (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- I am unsure why, given the content of the diffs Drmies has revdelled, the user has not already been indefinitely blocked. Fish+Karate 08:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- To be fair, he's never been blocked or warned before so an indef block for a first offense might be considered a harsh reaction. I can definitely see both sides of the argument though so maybe Drmies is just waiting for the discussion to play out before taking additional action. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- IP, you're pretty much spot on: since I have been responding here and making an edit (and suggestion) or two, I think it is a good idea for me to await what others have to say. The user hasn't been warned, and I am unwilling to just drop the most serious sanction on this person, though I am not convinced that they are a net positive. User:Fish and karate, if you feel an indef block is warranted, go for it: that I haven't done it doesn't mean I'm against it. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I came here to clear a dispute in a article content and got this instead.
@Drmies
I see you're threathning me with blocking partially based on rather made-up arguments:
You said // my response
- stop edit warring. // You may see I already did that by posting here
- RS is not an "empty claim". It's how we work. // If I dispute the connection between an article text and the source content it's not rejecting RS's, naturally. And there backing with a RS status is sidestepping the real issue.
- You didn't post on the talk page until two hours later // It's 13 minutes, and still I'm the only editor willing to discuss on the talk page
- lack of good faith (claiming they're just reverting for the sake of reverting) // if my opponents only argument is repeating "it's a RS", it naturally can lessen the good faith
Also I can't edit against a consensus when there had been only one user against my pow.
Further you make an baseless accusation my motive posting here was I "were hoping to get those other two editors punished"?? I'ts odd if an admin keeps a view that users' only motive to ask for admin help it to get his adversaries punished.--J. Sketter (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jorm After the 2nd thought your notification was well-intentioned. I'll collapse them, thou.
Thanks for the IP for saving my trouble to notify NorthBySouthBaranof & Pepperbeast. --J. Sketter (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Proposal - topic ban J. Sketter from all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, in line with the discretionary sanctions pertaining to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Plus a serious warning that further BLP-violating edits are likely to lead to an outright block. Fish+Karate 08:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- At first you liked me indefinitely banned, so this proposal shows at least some wisdom on your part, Karatefish. You base your new proposal on the procedure (yesterday they were just guidelines, now we have some more dangerous juridical stuff to deal with - a ref not for cultural illiterates), but you should tell how I'm eligible for that by any of the six cases listed in [[7]].
- Further. For the the Gamergate & multipersonal Quinn I don't care if you block me out of those topics {misgendering language redacted}}.
- Further, Karatefish, you'd like to block me out of any articles in the constantly updated list Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Current_areas_of_conflict (I had to make this clear to myself and am sure a little bit of clarification helps other readers). I still have failed to read what are the edits you specifically considered to make your criteria? Personal dislike is not a valid reason. --J. Sketter (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Since you're new here, you really need to take a step back and try to learn from what you're being told if you don't want to be blocked or banned. For starters, "just guidelines" suggests you don't understand how things work here. You can be blocked for persistently violating our guidelines in a way that is harmful, not least because doing so normally means you're violating some policy (e.g. WP:Edit warring). Please don't take "guidelines" to mean you're free to just ignore what they say.
And you were alerted of the discretionary sanctions regimes for both BLPs and gender or GamerGate related areas about 5 days ago [8]. Any of your actions since then which are considered by admins to come under the purview of the regimes can result in suitable sanctioned. While you cannot be sanctioned under the regimes for stuff occurring before the alerts were given, your actions before being alerted may still be relevant. If you persistent in causing the same problems now, we have more reason to think you're not going to stop.
Also, while you did open a talk page discussion at Talk:Paternity fraud I don't think you should get that high and mighty about it since you opened this ANI only about a day later. And you apparently removed sourced content when you had only read the abstract of the cited article.
In addition, opening a talk page discussion is not helpful when you're discussing something which has been discussed with extensively and you are not adding anything new to the discussion plus you're not even in the right place to change policy, such as with your comments at Zoe Quinn.
- J. Sketter, if you continue to use transphobic language and deliberately misgender someone, I will personally do whatever I can to ensure you receive the maximum sanctions that can be applied to you. I honestly think you should be blocked for that up there right now as you are obviously aware of the Gamergate sanctions and have just violated them. I am redacting your misgendering. --Jorm (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Based on the fact that J. Sketter tried to remove discussion from this page and based on the user's diatribe above, something more than a topic ban may be in order. WMSR (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Topic ban per Fish & Karate. I'd action this myself but I'm on my mobile phone. I don't think there's any doubt that this is the correct course of action, especially given the editor's comments and removal of others comments here. Black Kite (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- TBAN per Fish & Karate with short rope towards further sanctions too, as J. Sketter's comments here have me unconvinced of their ability to edit constructively. Perhaps moving topics to one they feel less strongly about will help, if they are able to do that. Pinguinn ? 10:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
User Wikideas1 uploading screen grabs from the internet without proper copyright attribution
This guy is screenshotting websites and uploading the media using "Own work", when it is clearly a screen grab. He also adds his "politically biased" graphics to articles to further his agenda. Maybe have a look at this guy.
At the article Forklift he added some ridiculous design which doesn't even fit in the section or the article.
212.98.173.17 (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The reporter neglected to notify Wikideas1 about alleged licensing problems and did not notify Wikideas1 properly about this very thread. See talk:Forklift #"Container_mounted_forklift" for the content dispute in Forklift. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I have reopened this as it seems to be an issue. I've posted Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs) closing remarks above, and removed the "close tags". As stated clearly in the posting directions for this page the editor must be notified. I'll do so now. — Ched (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'll also supply a couple of the diffs that seem to be in question:
These seem to indicate a pattern in last few months and IMO deserve discussion with regards to how appropriate the uploads and postings are. If Incnis Mrsi feels the IP is posting inappropriately, they should also provide diffs as AN and ANI posts look at behavior of all parties involved. — Ched (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- This is definitely my own work I create graphs using numbers for Mac. And to create the map I used pixelmator. Wikideas1 (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Wikideas1 - What about this image? Or this one? Looking at your user talk page on Commons, I see copyright violation warnings and numerous notices for deletions that go quite a ways back, and where the nominator cited similar problems (licensing and the claim of "own work"). What happens on commons isn't something that can be used to justify administrative action here, but local uploads that violate policy, as well as edits to articles that add images that are later shown to have licensing issues or are copyright violations can be. I suggest that we review this user's image uploads (both local uploads and commons uploads) and make sure that there are no other licensing issues or copyright violations that can be found. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Disruptive editing on Second_Battle_of_Ras_al-Ayn_(2019) by KasimMejia
KasimMejia appears to be engaging in disruptive non good faith editing on the page Second_Battle_of_Ras_al-Ayn_(2019). (1) He put the page up for deletion (2) He put a Wikipedia noticeboard incident up about the page and myself, without discussing the issues with myself (3) He then removed the link to the page from the main page about the operation 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria (4) he then put citation tags all through the page, some justified, but many spurious (5)At one point, he had 4 Banner problems on the page. Considering he is pushing for the page to be deleted because he says it is unsubstantial..at the same time, he is removing material from the page that should be there, and without seeking any sort of consensus on the talk page. At one point, he had put 16 citation tags in the article, and 4 issue templates at the top. I am not sure his editing has the genuine interest of wikipedia users at heart. I have asked for him to return the material to the page until consensus is reached, and he has refused. I don't have time to deal with this, and I can see he has had issues with edit warring in the past, and want to avoid this. I would ask that an admin has him blocked from the page, thank you. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- You two need to learn to work together instead of both of you continuing to bring your content disputes to ANI. El_C 10:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I would have assumed the above activity, plus this is not standard/good faith wikipedia article creation, especially considering KasimMejia has only been editing for less than a month.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- The article talk page is the place to raise these issues. Do so while assuming good faith, even and especially when disagreement is acute. Other editors' interpretation of the material may vary highly, but strive to reach consensus to sort out the article's direction. The AfD is part of that process. There are also dispute resolution requests that are available to you. Please take advantage of them rather than look for an admin to decide in your favour by fiat — that seems unlikely to happen at this time. El_C 10:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- The diff that he has linked was taken out by me after 1 minute. [9], [10]. KasimMejia (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- The article talk page is the place to raise these issues. Do so while assuming good faith, even and especially when disagreement is acute. Other editors' interpretation of the material may vary highly, but strive to reach consensus to sort out the article's direction. The AfD is part of that process. There are also dispute resolution requests that are available to you. Please take advantage of them rather than look for an admin to decide in your favour by fiat — that seems unlikely to happen at this time. El_C 10:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I would have assumed the above activity, plus this is not standard/good faith wikipedia article creation, especially considering KasimMejia has only been editing for less than a month.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment I nominated the page the user created for deletion due to lack of material. I also added verification and original research templates due to both problems at the page. I also opened a notification about the user here 2-3 days ago due to him adding uncited material. Later I improved the page he created by taking out unverified additions as well as the template and inline templates - he is now accusing me of disruptive editing for that. One final note, before opening this notice, user accused me of being in bad faith two times on my talk page, "having and agenda" and told me to cease working on the page he created or he will have an admin banned me from it. [11]. KasimMejia (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks El_C Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
This is just one more example of why WP:NOT#NEWS should be enforced, and we should wait until proper secondary sources, which don't include breaking news reports, appear. Both of the editors involved, from my cursory examination of their comments, appear to be reasonable people, but in this rush to lay down the first draft of history here they are bickering. Let's let historians decide what is history, and then have an article based on what they eventually write, rather than treat news reports as if they were secondary sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Slatersteven raised a similar point earlier this week about a related topic and I agree with him and Phil Bridger. There's no need to provide up-to-the-minute war reporting coverage on Wikipedia, in particular of a war that is literally happening right now. We are never going to be able to make an effective Wikipedia version of embedded war correspondents (w, and trying to do so usually leads to edit warring and policy violations by good faith editors. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- This is very much linked to the now closed thread about DS sanctions over at The Turkish invasion main article. Yes I do think wp:notnws is being ridden roughshod over. Its a policy and it is being ignored, here and at other related articles. I do not know (nor frankly do I care) who is at fault here. What I do care about is that this is not encyclopedic (and is borderline tabloid) reporting.Slatersteven (talk) 07:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization)
There is a problem with a neutral point of view on the page of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Particular attention was drawn to an active user in the Russian Wikipedia Wanderer777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who at one time replicated his version of the article at once in several language sections of Wikipedia. Moreover, he submitted the information in such a way that it does not correspond to a neutral point of view. When I tried to improve the article, my edits were simply deleted, despite the presence of the "in use" template.
For some reason, the author’s sources were deleted: https://daily.rbc.ua/rus/show/spasti-planetu-ukraintsy-ochishchayut-vodu-1449570920.html https://un-sci.com/ru/2019/05/29/ukrainskoj-akademii-nauk-ispolnilos-28-let/
I found the additional sources, but I'm afraid that they will be deleted the same way, and my work will be in vain. I left a message to Wanderer777 on his talk page but did not receive a response. Wanderer777 contributes a copyright infringing link. To do this, he turned to a user Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who added the link to the White List. Now Ymblanter has deleted not only the sources, but also the categories and infobox.
This behavior of the participants leads to the fact that they violate the fundamental users of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Since one of the users is an administrator, I write messages here-DrPoglum (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Judging by the page history and the edits made by the OP the OP is doing at least as much POV-pushing as they claim the editor they're complaining about is doing. The "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences" appears to be a private organisation with dubious scientific achievements, and the material added by the OP (with lots of material not supported by the provided source; the main source is an article in a Ukrainian newspaper that just reports on claims about the effectiveness of a certain industrial process made by the organisation, but has no info on the organisation as such, in spite of being used as a source for that by the OP) was removed by an en-WP administrator for being whitewashing and removing good sources. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, this is a fringe organization, and whereas I am not a fan of Ukrainian media (most of them are unprofessional and look more like blog aggregators), replacing links to them by links to organization itself is not really according to our policies. I know Wanderer777 for many years, still from my times on the Russian Wikipedia, he is in good standing there and has been elected to ArbCom on one or two occasions. If anybody needs a translation of his message and my response, I can provide the translation. Nobody ever pointer out to me an issue with copyright infringement, if there is a link in the article to the copyright infringement site, I will be happy to remove it. The rest I believe belongs to the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Btw I can not recollect myself adding any links to the whitelist. I mean, I can not exclude this either, I believe I did this on a couple of occasions in my life, but I certainly do not have any recollection of this fact, or see any connection with this article.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/03#expres.online. --Wanderer777 (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- And the link that was whitelisted there (translated into English here) proves that the "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences" is nothing but a scam, selling diplomas to whoever is willing to pay for them... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, it is clear. Still, I do not see anything related to copyright infringement.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I can't find any copyright violation either, but I did find an interesting edit by "DrPoglum" where they removed the incriminating link I commented on above, the one showing the organisation to be just a scam, with an obviously false claim about removing a spamlink. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Before accusing me of fraud, please wait for my reply. If the link did not infringe on copyrights, it would not have to be added to the White List. I reported this on the Wanderer777 talk page. This link is not displayed in Google search: https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/19099146.--DrPoglum (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you had checked what the discussion that was linked to says you would have seen that blocking it was a false positive (getting caught because of having "online" in the URL), and that it was whitelisted to get around that problem. So it had absolutely nothing to do with being a copyright violation, it also definitely wasn't a spamlink as you claimed in your edit summary when you removed it. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- You'll have to forgive me but, I do not understand your arguments. Narodna Vlada (ukr. "Народна влада") - the official media in Ukraine, registered judging by the registry under the number КВ 9567 (link to the gov.registry https://dzmi.minjust.gov.ua). They filed a complaint under the DMCA procedure for distributing their article without permission and their complaint was upheld. In this regard, materials infringing copyrights were hidden from the search results. Such links become impossible to add as sources to the Wikipedia.--DrPoglum (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? The link you removed is to "expres.online", not "narodna-vlada.org". DrPoglum's now changed editing style and inferior language skills makes me believe that the person who is using the account now isn't the same as the person who wrote the articles and filed this report... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 06:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- What is the logic behind this? What can it give? English is not my native language, so in complex sentences I can make inaccuracies, especially when I switch to working with several non-native languages. "expres.online" infringes copyright "narodna-vlada".-DrPoglum (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- I can't find any copyright violation either, but I did find an interesting edit by "DrPoglum" where they removed the incriminating link I commented on above, the one showing the organisation to be just a scam, with an obviously false claim about removing a spamlink. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- According to this Ukrainian news site (provided as a Google Translate translation so that you can check for yourself), the "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences" has nothing to do with real science and scientists, instead being created by non-scientists primarily to award fake academic diplomas to themselves and others... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- The site above is an aggregator and cannot be an authoritative source. There are only 17 views per article, 3 of which are from me. And an unknown author. And according to this source (national media) this organization brings together scientists and manufacturers and a specific example is given. However, this source has been removed by Ymblanter.--DrPoglum (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- This source that describing the scientific activities of the organization, its history, structure was also removed without explanation.--DrPoglum (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- There are several sources that say it's a sham/scam. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- The second one is a link to the website of the organization itself. This is what I meant in my first comment of this topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I did not find any connection of the https://un-sci.com publication with the organization.--DrPoglum (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- You are right, it looks indeed like this is indeed not the site of UAN, though a high number of articles on this site which cite UAN is highly suspicious. I do not have time now to investigate it further.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- This is an interview with the president of UAS. Everything about UAS is said by this president. --Wanderer777 (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- The only thing known about the site is that it is registered in Estonia (!!!). Contacts - error 502. --Wanderer777 (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- I did not find any connection of the https://un-sci.com publication with the organization.--DrPoglum (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
COI/paid editing by the OP
I had some time to spare so I decided to check the OP's edits, and found that he's active here, with this account at least, only during a short period each year, using his period of activity here last year to create an article, Municipal Guard (Odessa), that can best be described as a hatchet job on what seems to be a private army loyal to the mayor of Odessa, and then during his period here this year going all in on Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization), and completely white-washing it, so since he spent his time here in 2017 creating a bunch of articles about books by South-African writer Jonny Steinberg (books that at first glance don't seem to be notable on their own, including a couple of articles that have since been deleted and one that survived thanks to the tag being removed by a throw-away account that has since been blocked as a sock), editing that seemed to indicate a possible COI, I decided to check if I could find a direct connection between doing a hatchet job on the Odessa Municipal Guard and glorifying the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. And I found it. According to that article (which is in Ukrainian, but the link leads to a translation of it) the direct connection between the two is Oleg Maltsev, claimed to be running a sect in Odessa, having an organisation that is a rival to the Municipal Guard, and being a prominent member of the "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences". That link also shows that DrPoglum's article about the Municipal Guard, and their attacks on journalists only tells us part of what happened, failing to mention that the confrontation, between the Municipal Guard and Maltsev's group, started the previous day, and that the journalists that were said to have been attacked weren't "real journalists" but members of Maltsev's group. So the OP seems to be engaged in either paid editing or COI editing, but the impression I get is paid editing, supporting whoever pays best, and not doing it for "ideological reasons", since they seem to have switched sides, previously creating articles about books by Jonny Steinberg, and now supporting Maltsev's interests, because Steinberg and Oleg Maltsev seem to be bitter rivals, writing books about the same subjects (a "war" that has previously been fought also here, on en-WP, with the two sides nominating articles about each others' books for deletion, as can be seen a few lines up...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- You are trying to start discussing me, instead of the situation that is happening. By making my modest contribution, I try to be useful to the community.
- I did not remove the criticism from the article, this can be seen from the history.
- I am ready to check by Checkers.
- How does this justify deleting other sources categories and infobox?
- Do you really believe that the organization that has existed for more than 25 years, which includes scientists and professors, which has private universities, has left only negative information and not related to science?
- I do not represent anyone's interests, but only talk about neutrality in the article. I do not know about paid edits.
- One president of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences has more than 150 patents and many scientific papers. Do you really think this is a pseudo-scientific organization?
- Now most scientific organizations and institutes are private.
- I edit when I have free time, and never engage in vandalism. You can put my articles to be deleted if you think they are not notability. I am for observing the basic principles of Wikipedia. You can also expose the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization) page for deletion, since without the sources that was deleted, the notability is not visible. But what does this have to do with violating a neutral point of view. Ymblanter himself confirmed that he had known the user Wanderer777 for many years, so I am no longer surprised at such a reaction.-DrPoglum (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Anyone who files a report here is fair game, and will be scrutinized the exact same way that editors who are being reported here are. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I do not mind, only about the editors from you did not read anything.-DrPoglum (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I checked the edits made by Wanderer777 (who I can't remember ever seeing here, i.e. on en-WP, before), and can't see that he did anything wrong, nor did Ymblanter do anything wrong. But you did, since what you added to the article didn't match what I found when looking for sources, which is why I decided to check your other edits... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Until I saw a comment on the removal of more authoritative sources, categories, infobox and violation of a neutral point of view.-DrPoglum (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- You'll have to forgive me but I lost you there, and have no idea what you're trying to say. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm trying to say that you did not see any violations in the actions of Ymblanter and Wanderer777. But how do you comment on the deletion of information confirmed by independent sources and the deletion of the sources themselves, categories, infobox. This is not a violation in your opinion?--DrPoglum (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Point 4 above ("organization that has existed for more than 25 years"), reminded me of the Ukrainian/English Europe Business Assembly, which has existed for more than 19 years, and has sold fake awards totalling millions of pounds to many academics and politicians, at least some of whom were likely otherwise reputable. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- The only difference between the Europe Business Assembly and the "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences" (which should not be confused with the fully legit National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine) is that the former is aimed at the international market, while the latter is aimed at the domestic (Ukrainian) market, where being able to call oneself an Academician, and wearing a lapel pin showing the honour, still seems to be as big a thing as during Soviet times, so among the people who have bought, or in some cases apparently been given, fake diplomas, honours etc from the fake "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences" you'll find both politicians, businesspeople and (minor) scientists, many if not most of them people who don't have any legit university degree at all. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- In Google S?holar you can see the scientific work of members of the organization. For example Scientific works of the president of the organization Olexiy Onipko, Scientific works of vice president of the organization Livinsky Oleksandr. My request specifically concerned a violation of the neutral point of view in the article. There are more authoritative sources that describe the scientific activities of the organization.-DrPoglum (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- There are plenty of people who are willing to sell their soul for money, if the price is right, so having a figurehead with real credentials is common among sham/scam organisations and companies, and doesn't prove that the organisation as such is legit. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Onipko? I know, I know ... Onipko rotor inventor. But independent research has shown the low efficiency of this rotor. Look ?КТУ?ЛЬНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ ЭНЕРГЕТ?К? ?ПК // Материалы VI межд?народной на?чно-практиче?кой конференции. — Саратов: 2015 or Б?бенчиков ?. ?., ?ртамонова Е. Ю., Дайчман Р. ?. Применение ветроколе? и генераторов для ветроенергетиче?ких ??тановок малой мощно?ти // Межд?народный на?чно-и??ледователь?кий ж?рнал — Вып. 5-2 (36) — 2015. — С.37. --Wanderer777 (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Those Google scholar results are singularly unimpressive, very far from the kind of citation counts that could pass WP:PROF#C1 and even farther from what most reputable academies would accept as evidence of scholarly accomplishment. To me, they support the claim that this organization is a sham. But the point of discussion here is not that, nor even whether it is a notable sham (that's for the current AfD to decide), but rather whether there is a pattern of problematic editing. If there is, I agree that it seems to be purely on the part of the editor promoting this organization, DrPoglum. DrPoglum has had past articles deleted as unambiguous promotion and some other articles like The Number (book) potentially deserve the same treatment. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- The only difference between the Europe Business Assembly and the "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences" (which should not be confused with the fully legit National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine) is that the former is aimed at the international market, while the latter is aimed at the domestic (Ukrainian) market, where being able to call oneself an Academician, and wearing a lapel pin showing the honour, still seems to be as big a thing as during Soviet times, so among the people who have bought, or in some cases apparently been given, fake diplomas, honours etc from the fake "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences" you'll find both politicians, businesspeople and (minor) scientists, many if not most of them people who don't have any legit university degree at all. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Asim143 and titles
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Asim143 (talk · contribs) seems to have an infatuation with referring to Fazal-ur-Rehman with (and, in prose, solely by) his title of maulana. They've twice moved the article to include the title (violating WP:Naming conventions (people)#Titles and styles) and have blindly search-and-replaced all instances of "Fazal" in the article to "Maulana" ([12] and [13]). Notably, this came on my radar because they came onto #wikipedia-en-help demanding we protect the article on their preferred version; I and another helper refused to do so, and they don't seem to be getting the message. —v^_^v Make your position clear! 13:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- It would also appear that an article they created about a cricketer, Syed Muhammad Asim, is an autobiography. [14][15] The only source cited for the cricketer is a dead link. 86.134.75.242 (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that's disruptive – but, as far as I can tell, nobody has explained the rules to Asim143 on his talk page or on the article's talk page. I've move-protected the article for now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- If it were just the move I'd've taken it to RPP. But the blind replacement of his name with the title is also concerning. —v^_^v Make your position clear! 20:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramesh Nagaraj Rao (2nd nomination)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please can we have an admin look at the history of this AFD:
- An editor who voted delete in the AFD, hats/closes sub-discussions, marking them as "extended content", though the discussion is relevant. One of them with the personal comment "verging on WP:BLUDGEON". This action is clearly not appropriate for someone who has already voted.
- User:Winged Blades of Godric, the nominator, removes a "keep" vote by a IP. This is clearly against policy, as IPs are allowed to vote in afd's. The validity of the vote is for the closing admin to determine.
I reverted all of the above (with explanation), only to be rollbacked with the dismissive comment "busybodies", and then again with the comment "Go away". I requested them to [self-revert on their talk page], but alas, no response.
SD0001 (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- @SD0001: I see that Nosebagbear got there while I was typing his, but please make sure that all users involved, including Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs), are notified of ANI discussions, Iffy?Chat -- 22:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - I've looked, the IP seems to have restored their !vote. I'll restore it if it gets removed again without good reasoning. I'll take a look as to whether the hatted discussions can/should be extended. I don't believe either WBG or SerialNumber (who I've notified for you, since you also mention his edits) should have made those specific edits, though it should be noted that SerialNumber's second hatnote is actually hatting the nom's (and thus someone sharing his viewpoint). Nosebagbear (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've unhatted the first section, some is a discussion on interpretation of the rules and wouldn't be an issue if hatted, but other aspects are directly relevant to the discussion and the quality of the sourcing. Nosebagbear (talk)
- Comment See User talk:Kautilya3#Edit war. Winged Blades of Godric has been repeatedly reverting attempts to add sourced and relevant content during the discussion. With removal of content, hatnotes on comments, deleted votes, the Afd process here seems sort of broken to me. Winged Blades of Godric seems passionate about getting this rather bland article deleted, not sure why. Maybe Kautilya3 would care to comment? He seems fairly involved, having contributed to earlier versions of the article, voted to delete it, then reverted to the pre-expansion version. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Article protected due to edit warring. Guy (help!) 22:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Since the AFD has been open longer than 7 days, it can be closed at any time now, right? Because the consensus on the AFD is clear that the article should be deleted. The arguments for deletion has sufficiently shown that the article subject does not possess significant primary coverage. Of those who disagree, one user listed a number of sources that were found, which was met by arguments showing that these sources don't provide significant primary coverage of the article subject, but only trivial mentions that last only a few lines, or trivial mentions within page footnotes. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- According to WP:RELIST, yes it can. I'm considering just closing this AFD... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, you could close it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- NinjaRobotPirate -
Done. Closed as "delete" and with an explanation of the rationale provided. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- NinjaRobotPirate -
- Yeah, you could close it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- According to WP:RELIST, yes it can. I'm considering just closing this AFD... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but would an admin mind warning the nominator that they shouldn't remove comments that they disagree with or hide discussion without a good policy justification? He may have been right on the merits to nominate the article for deletion but it bothers me that he tried to manipulate the discussion by censoring or redacting other users' comments? 208.185.237.210 (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Fair request. Is there someone who can do this? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: perhaps a CU, who will establish wether the miraculous appearance of IPs on an obscure procedural page was anything more than coincidence; as I assume that was the nom's original cause for concern. ——SerialNumber54129 13:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Most likely. I'll leave it to someone else to follow up and have a note. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- From the above, it appears that this thread might be waiting for one more admin comment. User:Oshwah's decision to close this AfD appears well-timed, since having to rule on who was behaving well or badly in the AfD could have led to endless debate. Shall we say that some of the behavior was less than ideal. Do not get too concerned about IPs participating in AfDs. If they are not working in good faith, that is something the the closer can form an opinion on when doing the close and they can assign the appropriate weight to the views that may be expressed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Most likely. I'll leave it to someone else to follow up and have a note. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: perhaps a CU, who will establish wether the miraculous appearance of IPs on an obscure procedural page was anything more than coincidence; as I assume that was the nom's original cause for concern. ——SerialNumber54129 13:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Fair request. Is there someone who can do this? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
What may not be clear from the above is that Winged Blades of Godric removed a large amount of material from the article before nominating it for deletion. After it was expanded with new sources, he launched an edit war to remove the expanded version. The AfD discussion was on his gutted version, which indeed had little evidence of notability. Much of the debate was hidden behind hatnotes. And he deleted the IP's comments. I would say that he should at least get a slap on the wrist. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Asim143 moving draftified article back to mainspace
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See here. This seems to demonstrate to me, as a user following the original case, that this user may not have the competence to edit Wikipedia. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 08:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- TheDragonFire300 - I've moved the page back to the draft space and modified the redirect I left so that Asim143 cannot undo the move, overwrite the redirect, and move it back. I'll leave the user an explanation and warning. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Done (diff). Please let me know if the user causes any more disruption, and I'll be happy to take another look and determine the necessary next steps from there... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: Thanks. Though I wonder whether the redirect in mainspace defeats the purpose of drafitification. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 09:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- TheDragonFire300 - I was debating that as well... If anything, the redirect can be deleted later. For now, we can keep it and see what the user does in response. I hope that they understand and don't attempt to move the article back to the mainspace again... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: Thanks. Though I wonder whether the redirect in mainspace defeats the purpose of drafitification. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 09:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- This shouldn't have been re-draftified, but taken to WP:AFD. See WP:DRAFTIFY
Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page, and to have the matter discussed at WP:AfD. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD.
@Oshwah:, please revert. Iffy?Chat -- 10:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Considering that they basically dismissed Ninja's warning and their seeming inability to take on criticism, wouldn't an indef until they start communicating be justified? —v^_^v Make your position clear! 17:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- No, but this is an autobiography and the AfD closer will almost certainly salt it when they delete it. Kudpung ?ุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
64.8.128.0/18
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It seems that 15,872 IPs that comprise 31/32 of the range—namely, everything except Special:Contribs/64.8.190.0/23—are infested by unruly minors and hardly contribute in anything but vandalism and tests. To block IP-only:
- 64.8.128.0/19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
- 64.8.160.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
- 64.8.176.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
- 64.8.184.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
- 64.8.188.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
(this is, evidently, the dyadic decomposition of 64.8.128.0–64.8.189.255). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- WHOIS says that the range is owned by the State of Minnesota [16]. They have an abuse contact, anyone willing to take a crack at emailing them before we block the entire state government? (also, points to Incnis Mrsi for using the phrase "dyadic decomposition" in the same sentence as an IP range) creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 18:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- I can't see why there would be a need for a range block since only a couple of dozen or so of those IPs, i.e. only a couple of percent of them (all apparently school IPs), have edited en-WP during the past six months or so, and those can all be found here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- This whole /18 range was last blocked in February 2019 for three months by User:GeneralizationsAreBad. Anyone can look at Special:Contributions/64.8.128.0/18 and try to find a single good edit. In my opinion, it's time for another block. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Again, there are some legit edits originating from 64.8.190. Try to read the thread from the first phrase, EdJohnston. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Incnis Mrsi:, I overlooked your comment. Your proposal is to block the entire /18 except for the one good guy at Special:Contributions/64.8.190.0/23? And you are confident that the above five blocks do the job? EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- EdJohnston - I calculated the necessary ranges myself, and I can confirm that blocking the five IP ranges listed below (which are the same as the ones listed above) will block from 64.8.128.0 to 64.8.189.255, and leave 64.8.190.0 - 64.8.191.255 (or 64.8.190.0/23) open, which is exactly what Incnis Mrsi is looking for (which I agree with, as the IP range seems to be making good edits).
- 64.8.128.0/19
- 64.8.160.0/20
- 64.8.176.0/21
- 64.8.184.0/22
- 64.8.188.0/23
- Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- EdJohnston - I calculated the necessary ranges myself, and I can confirm that blocking the five IP ranges listed below (which are the same as the ones listed above) will block from 64.8.128.0 to 64.8.189.255, and leave 64.8.190.0 - 64.8.191.255 (or 64.8.190.0/23) open, which is exactly what Incnis Mrsi is looking for (which I agree with, as the IP range seems to be making good edits).
- @Incnis Mrsi:, I overlooked your comment. Your proposal is to block the entire /18 except for the one good guy at Special:Contributions/64.8.190.0/23? And you are confident that the above five blocks do the job? EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Again, there are some legit edits originating from 64.8.190. Try to read the thread from the first phrase, EdJohnston. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- This whole /18 range was last blocked in February 2019 for three months by User:GeneralizationsAreBad. Anyone can look at Special:Contributions/64.8.128.0/18 and try to find a single good edit. In my opinion, it's time for another block. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Support rangeblock - Literally not one good edit in their contributions. Jdcomix (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks to the commenters above I figured out how this works. The five ranges originally proposed above by User:Incnis Mrsi (and confirmed by User:Oshwah) are now blocked 6 months each for vandalism. That is a doubling of the prior block length given to the /18. EdJohnston (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Topic ban violation by KHMELNYTSKYIA
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
KHMELNYTSKYIA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
The user is topic-banned from Ukraine [17] and has been previously blocked from topic ban violation [18] but continues to edit (and sometimes edit-war) on topics related to Ukraine [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Every single edit since their last block expired is a violation of their topic ban. I have blocked for a month. – bradv? 19:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tetsou TheIronman
- Tetsou TheIronman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Tetsou TheIronman keeps adding incidents that don't meet the inclusion criteria to terrorism-related list articles. The inclusion criteria per a recent RfC says To be included, entries must be notable (have a stand-alone article) and described by a consensus of reliable sources as "terrorism". Their edits don't meet those criteria, since they almost never are notable. I didn't check them for the "described as" criterion but at least this incident didn't meet any of the criteria.
Tetsou TheIronman has been warned several times on User talk:Tetsou TheIronman#October 2019. His additions have been reverted with an explanatory comment [24] [25]. It should be clear to them that their additions don't meet the inclusion criteria. Sjö (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Tetsou TheIronman evinces one of the strongest cases of WP:IDHT I've ever seen. I've explained the RfC set criteria to them countless times, and they've claimed to understand, and that they will cease inserting inappropriate entries. Then the second they think nobody is looking they go right back to it. A topic ban from Terrorism related articles would be appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
IiKkEe's stylistic changes that leave articles, especially medical articles, in an inaccurate state and/or state of disarray
At various articles, especially medical articles, and especially with regard to the leads, IiKkEe makes unnecessary stylistic changes that often leave the text in a less accurate, simply inaccurate, and/or sloppy state. It's not unusual for these edits to not align with Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. It's not unusual for IiKkEe to change the context and/or meaning of things, and to give WP:Undue weight to things. And this includes articles that are of WP:Good or WP:Featured status. The editor can make many edits in a row, which, in addition to usually needing to be reverted or tweaked, can take up a lot of time when reviewing the changes. And the editor's content is sometimes unsourced. As seen here, here and here, the editor has also been known to edit war just to retain their edits. The editor has gotten a bit better about this over time, being more willing to go to the talk page to discuss, but it's not enough. Discussion can consist of the editor wanting their way, and then editing the article in some other problematic fashion if they don't get their way.
To get right into this matter, see the examples below.
Examples of IiKkEe's problematic editing, spanning years.
|
---|
|
There are a lot of other examples of IiKkEe's changes that leave articles in compromised states, but I focused on the examples I reviewed and some that are mentioned on IiKkEe's talk page. This Potassium article example is another from IiKkEe's talk page. IiKkEe can be polite enough when interacting with editors, but being polite isn't enough to negate editing/competence issues. Furthermore, as indicated by this section on IiKkEe's talk page, IiKkEe has a tendency to thank editors via WP:Echo and go right back to editing disruptively. I've experienced this with regard to IiKkEe and other editors whose edits were riddled with issues. It can have the effect of seeming antagonistic even when it's not meant to be.
IiKkE's editing reminds me Anthony22's editing, except that Anthony22's problematic stylistic changes mainly concerned biographies. He was recently "indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia." Original thread on that is seen here. I'm not sure what the best remedy should be in IiKkEe's case, but if the community decides that he should refrain from editing medical articles, this should be broadly construed to include anatomy and sexuality articles since they can overlap and IiKkEe has edited problematically at some anatomy articles (such as Nephron) and questionably at a few sexual topic articles thus far. I just know that something needs to be done. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Like Flyer22 Reborn said, there are many more examples of this behavior. Here are just a few that I've seen over the last 2 weeks:
- Here they changed "usually involves" to "is" purely for being "more direct", but had to be reverted because it ignored that sources vary.
- Here they removed "typically" in the 1st sentence, which caused it to be only about the female genitalia and making it contradict the 3rd sentence about the anus.
- Here at Oral sex they changed the 1st sentence significantly by changing "or" to "and". It went from saying "(including the lips, tongue, or teeth) or throat" to "including the lips, tongue, and teeth; and the throat".
- At the same article, they changed "female genitals" to "vulva", which had to be changed to "vulva or vagina".
- IiKkEe then, because they wanted the terminology to be "comparable", changed the sentence from "Cunnilingus is oral sex performed on the vulva or vagina, while fellatio is oral sex performed on the penis" to "Cunnilingus is oral sex performed on the female genitalia - the vulva and vagina - while fellatio is oral sex performed on the male genitalia - the penis and scrotum". Thus, they again made up their own definition for fellatio. They were rightly reverted. I also replied to them on the talk page.
- Again, these are just a few very recent examples from just a few articles that IiKkEe has edited. This editor seems to put their own subjective and often poor style opinions ahead of sourcing and common usage. This results in problems, as explained by Flyer22 Reborn.
- As shown by her examples, this appears to be an ongoing problem over many years. IiKkEe should have learned better by now. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Rangeblock and cleanup needed
- 2601:49:8402:EA20::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)
2601:49:8402:EA20::/64 has left behind a massive dump of unsourced edits, mostly fiddling with birthdates in actor bios. What I've spot checked doesn't seem correct, e.g. [27]]. In any case today they've moved on to adding outright death hoaxes, complete with fake sources, so I'm not AGFing here. I've mass-rollbacked all the top edits, but there's probably lots more buried behind other edits that needs to be undone. I'll start, but would like some help. Thanks, all! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's block evasion by Special:Contributions/2601:49:8401:f48b::/64. I'll try to do the clean up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Everything is cleaned up. As a bonus, I also range blocked another vandal. Thank you for reporting this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Disputed and WP:BITEy block of new editor
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Rcorsini54 created a user page quoting four poems or song lyrics. C.Fred warned Rcorsini54here that Like I said, a line or two is fine, but the parts that look like they're full songs (or at least more than one verse) are probably in violation of policy. I will do you the courtesy of letting you clean them up, but technically, any user could remove them at any time.
Rcorsini54 responded on User talk:C.Fred, (diff) saying Thank you, C. Fred... will clean them up.
Rcorsini54 then (minutes later) cut the quotes down to 4-6 lines per song posted to the Teahouse asking Just wondering if the edits I made are ok content wise without putting up a complete song lyric.
Shortly after that Bbb23 speedy deleted the user page User:Rcorsini54, under WP:CSD#U5, with no other editor having tagged this for speedy deletion. I honestly do not think that the final version meets the U5 standard of Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article.
which is included in Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have in my user pages?. Rather it seems to me that this constituted A small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material ... such as (free use) pictures from Wikimedia Commons, favorite Wikipedia articles, or quotations that they like.
as explicitly permitted by Wikipedia:User page#What may I have in my user pages?
Earlier, Rcorsini54 made edits to Pete Townshend and Adam Duritz (this and this), both were promptly reverted. Each was an apparent attempt to communicate with the article's subject. This is not helpful, but it is minor and easily explained -- however no one attempted to explain -- both edits were reverted with a minimal edit summery, and no note or warning, templated or manual, was placed on the user's talk page.
Not long after deleting the user page, Bbb23 blocked Rcorsini54 indefinitely for Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia; also disruptive and WP:CIR
.
I posted to Bbb23's talk page, describing some of this and concluding with I ask that you reconsider the block, please. It seems to me that there is a WP:BITE issue here.
The response was this A few other editors posted to thread, and I posted further, all easily visible. But Bbb23's latest response, posted as i was editing this, proposes to wait, leaving the block in place, until Rcorsini54 requests an unblock (assuming that s/he does request one}, and evaluate that, Bbb23 also said All that said, we have three administrators who disagree with my actions here. They haven't persuaded me to unblock, but they have fulfilled their responsibility to talk to me before taking any action. Why doesn't one of you just unblock the user
. Accordingly I am about to unblock, but I would like community review of my actions. I want to be clear that I am in no sense seeking to "punish", and I assume good faith that Bbb23 believes the block justified. I would like to know if the community agrees that such a case justifies an indefinite block. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- I was first admin on the scene, as it were, to this user. I saw his edits where he expressed his POVs on certain artists [28][29]. These weren't constructive edits, to be sure, but they weren't outright vandalism. The user had also started an autobiography in draft space. I pointed out that was a bad idea, and he assented for me to delete it, CSD G7. At that time, there were one or two small music quotations on his user space; however, the thing that caught my eye was the comment,
I will begin populating with helpful info beginning January 1st 2020 for "clear vision!"
That was enough to get his talk page on my watch list and to keep an eye on what he was up to, but it didn't create a direct problem.
- The next day, he expanded his user page with additional song quotations; I cautioned him, in a non-templated fashion, about copyvio. The user then went to the teahouse to ask questions. All seemed well, IMO, until they said
I think this is due to a multiple device look. It was 2... my 2 sons. I asked them not to login as me anymore.
WP:LITTLEBROTHER is in the house. Bbb23 blocked a minute later. - This block seems like the nuclear option. The editor surely wasn't off to a good start, but I don't think he was beyond saving. I'm still willing to assume good faith in the user—and see if he rolls back the claim about his sons logging in when informed (gently, I would hope) that account sharing is not allowed and that compromised accounts can be blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
No real opinion on the block, but the unilateral unblock without the agreement of the blocking admin was uncalled for and against policy. DESiegel should have taken it to AN first rather than unblocking and coming here. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)- There's nothing in the blocking policy (especially the section you linked) prohibiting reversal of an administrator action. Wheel-warring is forbidden, but a simple reversal isn't. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) TonyBallioni, the comment, quoted above, by Bbb23 of
Why doesn't one of you just unblock the user
seems to be an invitation to do just that. I can to ANI rather than AN because I wanted a quick response in hopes of avoiding a BITE effect. I was originally going to simply describe the situation and ask for community consent to an unblock, when going to User talk:Bbb23 I read that comment (diff above) and changed my mind to unblock right after posting hre. I would also note the comments of other admins at the talk page, which I in no way solicited, seem to make the unblock not exactlyunilateral
. Must all unblocks now be approved at a notice board or by the blocking admin? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC) - (Multiple ecs, replying time Reaper Eternal) Disagree: the section below on unblock requests says if agreement can’t be come to, to take it to AN. Unilateral unblocks are highly discouraged. That being said, I was about to strike it, as Bbb23 said they could unblock, which I didn’t see. That being said, this thread seems like drama for the sake of drama since he said they could unblock... TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- The section of the policy page on responding to unblock requests says:
administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is recommended.
It does not say that discussion must take place before the unblock, nor that ANI is not an acceptable venue. I think my record is fairly clear, I do not likedrama for the sake of drama
but when an action seems to me to violate policy or procedure and may occur again, I think that a community discussion is often a good way to clarify what should be done in similar cases going forward. I explained my motives above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)- We have different readings, but as I said, Bbb23 was fine unblocking, so my criticism is moot. On the merits, I likely wouldn’t have blocked, but I also don’t really have much of an expectation that this user will be productive, so I probably wouldn’t have unblocked either. Now that they’ve been unblocked, I don’t see a point in reinstating the block. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- The section of the policy page on responding to unblock requests says:
- (edit conflict) TonyBallioni, the comment, quoted above, by Bbb23 of
- There's nothing in the blocking policy (especially the section you linked) prohibiting reversal of an administrator action. Wheel-warring is forbidden, but a simple reversal isn't. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with the unblock. The block was a little too hasty—the user hadn't yet proven that he wasn't here to contribute. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Outing
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At least an attempt: [30]. I'm not from Washington (see User:Toddst1#Who_I'm_Not) but he's obviously tried to google stalk me. Toddst1 (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think he misread your "who I'm not" part of your userpage. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.