Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive993

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

OldSumo326227 Cannon: HERE?[edit]

I've noticed strange edits by this account including copyright violations (some pages were copies from biography.com and had to be deleted, but also material from their talk page), then section blanking here. Never have used a talk page other than to copy material from elsewhere, despite attempts to reach out to them like here. It's unclear what they are trying to do and will not attempt to explain. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Not really. Though it is fine to wait some more before indeffing the user. Capitals00 (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by Sameem123[edit]

Sameem123 has already been blocked twice in the past year for disruptive editing. Lately, he has been persistent with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Briefly, he wants to add Rising Stars Challenge to the infobox of participants of that annual exhibition game. After his intial bold edits, I reverted and left a message on his talk page at 10:30, 30 June 2018, explaining my objection and inviting him to get consensus. Subsequently, he has not gotten a single supporter, but will not drop the WP:STICK. His responses:

  1. User talk:Bagumba 12:18, 30 June 2018 I don’t want to create Wikipedia articles all I want to add to nba players who participate it on event can’t believe you took it off everybody would agree with me except you.
  2. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_34#NBA_rising_stars_challenge 06:42, 1 July 2018 Rising stars challenge is accomplishment to any nba players in their first or second year in NBA.
    • 17:07, 3 July 2018 Rising stars challenge is accomplishment to any nba players in their first or second year in NBA. You’re not gonna convince me that not necessary to add infobox.
    • 17:10, 3 July 2018 There is consensus to add it info box to any nba players who made in their first or second year in nba just like all stars appearances like LeBron, Jordan, Kobe, KD.
    • 16:49, 4 July 2018 I warned him to WP:LISTEN and to not fabricate "consensus".
  3. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_34#Rising_stars_challenge 10:27, 1 August 2018 Please add it to nba player in their first or second year in NBA.
    • 13:31, 1 August 2018 I asked: "What is different now than when you brought this up last month ..."
  4. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#NBA_Rising_Stars_Challenge 23:40, 17 September 2018 It’s award for nba players in their first and second year in NBA. Please add this award in nba players.
    • 07:56, 18 September 2018 Sabbatino disagreed with Sameem123
    • 10:28, 18 September 2018 I warned Sameem123 about WP:NOTGETTINGIT
  5. User talk:Sabbatino 05:01, 20 September 2018 So nba all star game on Sunday is exhibition game and that counts as all star appearances and winning mvp in all star game is same as rising stars challenge please stop making this hard on me and yourself I just wanted to be award.
    • 08:01, 20 September 2018‎ Sabbatino reverts with edit summary of "I'm not going to discuss anything with you, because you keep ignoring what has been told to you by other users"

Sameem123's behavior is captured by guideline WP:CTDAPE, disrupting at "a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles."

Given their last block was for a week, 2 weeks now seems reasonable.—Bagumba (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that the user will post to this thread. How will we handle their continuing unresponsive behavior?—Bagumba (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

User Amber Guyger engaged in mass page move disruption[edit]

....is right now making a massive number of moves to train related articles, with a silly spelling of "high". Urgent action needed please. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I seem to remember another similar (though smaller) clump of moves from "high" to "hihg" a day or so ago. Was this related? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
That was by Sap Aptopio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I assume either sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This user seems on a campaign to rapdily move a large number of railway articles, "correcting" the spelling of 'high' to 'hihg'.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 08:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This is ongoing vandalism, please block the user until an explanation has been received. Reported to WP:AIV ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I emergency blocked for 31h, now investigating whether I should reblock as vandalism only account. Please help with moving the articles back. (I did not yet template the user, will do it shortly).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)User is now blocked by Ymblanter (talk · contribs). Their moves are listed here, not all are railway. I don't have time to revert any as I need to go to work. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Reblocked indef, help with move is still needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm also working on cleaning up. Careful to undo bot fixes of double-redirects. DMacks (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Ymblanter blocked 31h, but I think this should be indef - there are no edits other than autoconfirm gaming and page move vandalism. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Nb. Ymblanter Extended the block to indefinite (Block log). North America1000 09:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Hihg is a reasonably common typo. If the moves had been simply reverted, and the newly redirect pages tagged {{Redirect from typo}} any double redirects would have been automatically fixed, future non-admin moves blocked, and we would have gained some marginally useful redirects. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC).
  • Comment 2 Talk:Madrid–Levante high-speed rail network seems to have been lost in the moves. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC).
    Thanks, I have restored the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    Considering that the user picked the name of a police officer who was involved in a high profile shooting in Dallas earlier this month, it's pretty clear they had nothing but bad intentions. (Considering the deliberate misspelling in "Sap Aptopio", I'm smelling something socky in Texas.) caknuck ° needs to be running more often 16:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Persistent WP:CIR issue[edit]

Srbernadette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
At the help desk, Srbernadette (and often logged out as IP addresses) constantly asks the same questions. They are always about referencing errors, and nearly always about CS1 errors that they have caused. The fact that they have been editing for ~2 years and constantly ask the same questions, with an inability to learn from their mistakes and act on clear, simple advice shows that their level of competency is insufficient to edit Wikipedia in my opinion. WP:CIR says that " A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. For that reason, it can become necessary for the community to intervene when an editor has shown, through a pattern of behavior, the likelihood that they are not capable of contributing in a constructive manner." This user has spent years asking the same questions, multiple people have been endlessly patient with them at the Help Desk, yet they show an inability to do basic referencing. Therefore, as per the CIR quote above, I believe that it is time for the Wikipedia community to intervene. Evidence of their lack of competency is just shown my the number of CIR-related complaints (and there have been many more on the IPs they have used, although I don't have the IP addresses). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent IPs include User:175.33.45.21 and User:203.132.68.1. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Just so it's clear, I don't think a topic ban from the Help Desk would help, as they'd still make the persistent errors. I'm instead requesting a block as they lack the competency required to edit English Wikipedia. Don't know if it's because they're young, or their first language isn't English, but they aren't competent enough, and haven't acknowledged any attempts to reach out to them. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I've lost count of the number of times I've had to warn the editor at the Help desk to not deliberately make errors and come to the Help desk asking for assistance. That's the basic system they operate in; create a deliberate error, then rush to the Help desk with a sorrow-laden request (which would have terms like "I am sorry I couldn't correct the error"; while there're no significant attempts to do the same). This seems to be an attention seeking issue. While the editor has claimed sometime in the past (I may be wrong here, so don't quote me) that they are some kind of an educator in some institution, I think it's a red herring to keep the issue away from bloating up. They also have started editing using IPs to avoid their edits being connected. Despite being warned on their talk page by me to not do the same, they've continued editing while being logged out.
If the editor strictly agrees to edit without being logged out, and to first undo their edits which created the problem in the first place, before reaching the Help desk, they may be allowed to continue with a zero-tolerance warning note. I don't think the editor will even reply here – if they don't comment and give explanations here, just block them indefinitely because this is absolutely disruptive. Simply topic banning them from Help desk is not going to help; they will continue deliberately inserting errors in articles, and maybe go to the talk pages of individual editors. Lourdes 00:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this editor is problematic. If they think that making their requests at the Help Desk logged out will avoid calling attention to them, that is a mistake. Any Help Desk editor who has seen their requests recognizes them from IP addresses, and their making the requests from IP addresses is just annoying. I would assume good faith that they don't make the mistakes on purpose, but I agree that there is a competence problem, and that they should at least be topic-banned from the Help Desk and probably given an indefinite but not infinite block. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, she's back at the Help desk, again asking the mess she has created to be rectified. This isn't going to stop. Lourdes 08:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
And they're at it again under IP 175.33.45.21 - they have five sections on the help desk today alone! Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Srbernadette topic ban from HD and indefinite block proposal[edit]

Given the IDHT behaviour of Srbernadette (in not agreeing to undo their error-laden edits, despite being told multiple times) and lack of response at this desk, and given their continuing disruption of articles and at the Help desk by either deliberately or unknowingly inserting errors and then asking other editors to clean up after them, I propose that the community considers topic banning Srbernadette from the Help desk, combining the same with (striking post Ivan and Guy's comments; hopefully isn't an issue with the previous supporters. Lourdes 13:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)) an indefinite block, until the editor agrees explicitly to not continue such editing behaviour. Lourdes 08:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Lourdes 08:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as per my initial comments. I would only support unblock if they agree that whenever they get errors, they undo their issue, and then read the relevant error messages. I assume this is also applies to their multiple IP addresses, as blocks are given to people not accounts? Joseph2302 (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with misgivings - I think this is as close to a "pure" CIR as they come; the editor has nothing but good intentions but a completely baffling incapacity for learning even the simplest fixes for their constant errors. This feels mean but necessary. Note, I think the block is the important bit here - merely keeping the issues away from the Helpdesk will only mask them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite block for the editor (including IPs so perhaps the block needs supporting with a ban). I have tried countless times to advise this editor, but he never takes notice of what he's told. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This looks like a WP:CIR block, not a TBAN. Which are we being asked to discuss? Guy (Help!) 11:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the combination as ... weird. Why would we topic-ban them and also block them? One or the other, not both. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    Guy, Ivanvector, point noted and modified. Lourdes 13:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • In that case, support an attention-getting softblock until the user responds and acknowledges the problem and accepts advice on how not to create these errors in the first place. I'm worried, though, that we're just going to send the user into logged-out block-evasion sockpuppetry and end up with them banned, so I hope if that happens admins will consider some leniency. If it's evident they're just disinterested in learning how to fix the errors themselves, then we'll be heading into a CIR indef anyway, I just don't want to jump there right away for someone who is apparently trying to help but doing it all wrong. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support at least a softblock, per CIR. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This editor works in areas very far from my interests, and I do have sympathy for those at the Help Desk who have tried to help them, and I admit I am new to the case. But the editor appears to be adding referenced content. I see no evidence of an English problem, although I note people have said their spelling is weak (that's hardly unusual). What I do see is someone who has used the citation templates from the get-go and appears to find them very difficult. I note that our guidance for new editors these days assumes the use of citation templates, and also advocates asking at the Help Desk when one has a problem ... so I've followed a hunch and pointed out on the editor's talk page that the templates are not mandatory. I think the editor has a problem with templates, and since they really are not mandatory, that should not be a deal-breaker. I may of course be wrong, but I thought it couldn't hurt in the spirit of AGF. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    I think the Help desk regulars have attempted the spirit of AGF since ages. The problem is not their understanding of the citation template; the problem is their erroneous entries. One example from their innumerable postings – on 13 September 2015, three years ago, the editor edited an article and entered the date in the citation template as 13 September 20115.[1] Immediately thereafter, within two minutes of doing this, they leave a message at the Help desk claiming "ref number 100 is a mess - what is wrong?". Cut to three years later, and the story is absolutely the same, with their innumerable postings in-between on the Help desk already resulting in as many amounts of advice to the editor to use simpler referencing systems, or to undo their errors, or to read the letters in red.... The Help desk regulars have seen this for years. You may be new on the scene but you should know what you are AGFing. And of course, please do ping me if the editor ever replies to your note of advice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've seen this person around the help desk a lot. I'm sure it does get annoying seeing the same person with the same problem over and over. If I were to guess, I'd say this person is probably older - 60s, 70s, somewhere in there, and finds technology daunting. They've learned that if they screw up the reference they can go to the help desk and someone will fix it for them. I think that's the problem, is that people have been fixing it for them. I know people have tried to explain how to fix it, but has anyone actually combined explaining how to fix it with then making them fix it themselves? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    On countless occasions he has been told what the problem is and how to fix it, but he repeatedly comes back and asks the help desk to fix the same sort of problems (as mentioned above, such as obviously invalid dates). --David Biddulph (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    Right, that's what I said, people tell them how to fix the problems, but they don't make them fix it. Some people only learn by doing. Stop doing it for them. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    I have no way to "make them fix it"; I can leave it with the error in place, or revert the edit which inserted the error. I agree that those who keep correcting the errors when requested to do so by the incompetent editor are just encouraging the continuation of the disruptive editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    From my reading of the situation I'm with David, though I dislike some of the aggressive language he's used in reply. It seems that the editor has been advised several times how to fix their errors, but they don't. They don't take the advice and don't try to fix it, they just run off and make another of the same errors and then run back to the help desk. WP:CIR is precisely correct here - you can explain all you want to an editor how to fix a thing, but if they won't do it then somebody has to. You can't force anyone to do anything, we can only prevent them from keeping on with making the same mistakes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    ONUnicorn, the editor simply refuses to hear any advice – as they have chosen to do by not responding to Yngvadottir's message, to the Help desk regulars innumerable messages over years, to this ANI discussion... With all due respects, if you are proposing that you will lead the way to engage the editor in discussions and are able to evoke a response from them agreeing to change their behaviour, I will withdraw this proposal. Otherwise, you cannot expect Help desk volunteers to again go through more years of similar behaviour. When the editor makes a mistake and runs away after noting it on the Help desk, they simply don't respond to any message to correct their error. How do you propose to handle that? We are proposing a block till they change this behaviour. If you have a better administrative method that you will take up personally (and not expect others to do it), please do mention here and I will be okay to withdraw the proposal. Thanks, Lourdes 03:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do not believe there is any reasonable hope that Srbernadette reform her ways; we could try a stern warning, but the real choice is between indef-block and tolerating the negatives because of the positives. (TBANning from the HD is certainly worse than either option.) For the positive, see the contributions, my non-expert view is that Srbernadette is rather productive in the niche topic of British nobility.
The negatives come in two spades: breaking article or reflist layout because of technical mishaps, and disrupting the help desk because of repeated hand-wringing queries; neither of which come even close to outweighing the positive in my view. About the former, adding a reference to the article and breaking the formatting along the way is in my view even a positive; yes, it would be better not to break the layout, but at the end it still gives us a useful ref. About the latter, the volume of queries is rather low (maybe 2-3 per week) and is not impeding the help desk's operation in any significant way.
On the whole I stand by my comment at Wikipedia_talk:Help_desk/Archive_12#What_is_the_Help_Desk?: if you don't want to correct her mistakes, don't do it, but don't complain that others do so. Tell others they should not be fixing the mistakes because it encourages the bad behavior, sure, but don't force them not to help either. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I believe that Srbernadette is an asset to Wikipedia, adding referenced content, albeit on topics of no interest to me such as the British royal family. Yes, she is incompetent, but she is invariably polite and is not argumentative or disruptive. I find it easy to carry out her requests, by e.g. moving the date of a ref into the "date" field, and have no objection to doing so. I cannot explain her incompetence, but I acknowledge it, just as I acknowledge that there are people who can't calculate 57+26 in their head, and will never be able to despite any amount of nagging. The continuing reprimands issued to Srbernadette by some of the experienced editors listed above remind me of the quotation "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". A block, or the threat of a block, will not reform Srbernadette's behaviour, it will just cause the loss of a useful contributor, who has not violated any rule. If you believe that disruption of the Help Desk is a serious issue, then please try to get Srbernadette to direct her requests to my talk page instead; she has once made a request there (and I realise now that I should have answered it by correcting what she had done, rather than just giving factual answers). Maproom (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with Tigrann and Maproom. This editor may have some difficulty grasping usage of citation templates but overall is a positive contributor and not causing any significant disruption.MB 16:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I am very much undecided on this issue. I would agree that SB overall contributes to the encyclopedia but also share the frustrations expressed by other editors. I quite often fix their errors after requests at the help desk and then return to their thread pointing out what was wrong in the hope that they will gain some knowledge: that doesn't seem to work! Joseph2302 will, I think, remember a now indef'd IP-hopping, disruptive (though possibly well-intentioned) editor to Formula One pages, who, it was eventually discovered, had a connection to a school for special-needs pupils (for which Wikipedia has a page). Some similarities in the two editors' behaviour might suggest something similar happening here. This however, does not grant a licence for disruption as WP:AUTIST and WP:NOTTHERAPY suggest. The IP editor was disruptive in multiple ways though not just in lacking the skills. Overall I think a block or ban to be a bit harsh; it may ultimately come to that but I do not know if there's an effective way of getting SB to improve in these small ways. (Thanks Tigraan for the 'ping'). Eagleash (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    I'm strongly on the Oppose side, but I've seen enough of SB's activity to believe nothing will get her to improve her editing skills. Incidentally - we see plenty of editors who add references in the form of bare URLs - that's more annoying than the behaviour of SB, but no-one threatens them with blocks, eventually some drudge just gets round to filling in the details. Which is worse, adding a ref incompetently and walking away, or adding a ref incompetently and reporting what you've done? Maproom (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    If there is any problem here, it seems to be with the edit errors and not necessarily their reporting those errors to the Help desk. The latter is a product of the former; if the former kinds of edits are banned, such as in some sort of topic ban on certain MediaWiki markup (like citation templates and perhaps tables or wherever else the errors tend to occur), then the Help desk behavior is no longer problematic and any violation of the topic ban results in a block, anyway. I suggested as much below as an alternative to blocking, since I ultimately want to ensure productive editors are retained and support for a block is already significant. (I hope you don't mind the minor refactoring.)
    As for the bare URL references, they may be inferior to well-formated and wikified citations (and in that sense annoying), but they are at least leads for WikiGnomes and the like to clean up. The community tolerates users like me for exactly that reason. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 22:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    Considering the significant number of editors with Asperger syndrome and autism who have no problem with competence (and those are only the self-identifying ones!), I do not think it matters whether this editor is among them. Perhaps you meant low-functioning autism in specific, but that is not what WP:AUTIST is about. Regardless, if I am understanding you correctly, I do not think speculating about the cognitive conditions of editors is productive (and may be taken as uncivil), nor is it ultimately relevant. It may, in principle, explain certain behavior; however, what matters is the competence as such as not whatever might be affecting it. Given what you said, I suspect you agree. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 22:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I am unfamiliar with this case and have not reviewed it, so I have no comment on whether any action should be taken, but I do have a suggestion for everyone to consider: If the problem seems to be with the use of CS1 and CS2 templates, or even templates generally, then perhaps a specific ban on using them would solve it? I do not know if that has ever been done, and I generally only cite in CS1 myself; however, if the editor is otherwise productive in providing worthwhile prose and sourcing, then sticking to plain-text contributions with minimal MediaWiki (and HTML?) markup may resolve this. There are plenty such users; the wikification can be left to others, like me.
    If retaining this editor is a net positive for the project, and bare URL references count as a net positive, then this is a way that might achieve that. If not, the conditions of the ban would involve a block for violation, anyway. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 22:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment: It's late, so I'm not going to say much now except to point out that SB has only ever edited their own talk page once. And that was to ask for help in a section started by SineBot. I'd be more inclined to help a person if they showed the least amount of effort to respond to questions or guidance. SB has not done that. We only get "I can't do it" type replies followed by another request to make the fixes. †dismas†|(talk) 02:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • For better or worse, I'm going to point out that Category:CS1 errors has 185,622 pages in it at the moment. One editor creating a handful more errors once in a while probably isn't that big a deal. The problem as I understand it is the repetitive help desk posting: asking for help for the same problem repeatedly after being given advice on how to fix it seems more like deliberate carelessness, like the user has come to expect that someone will just clean up after them. I don't really know what to suggest but I'll try anyway: next time the user comes to the help desk with this same problem, tell them how to fix it, but leave it for them to fix it themselves. If they fix it, great! If they don't, then WP:CIR. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support To put it bluntly, SB is being a child. They are continually asking the same questions again and again and not learning or progressing at all. If a child were to ask you to tie their shoes every day, you'd teach them how. Or give them a pair of slip-on shoes. Either SB learns how to tie their shoes or they're told they have to use A) use bare URLs, or B) leave the error. Let's face it, the error isn't that bad. And it still leaves the bulk of the information there in the reference. It's nothing for someone to come by at some natural or "organic" time and fix it whenever someone gets the hankering to fix some citation errors. SB has always and still continues to have the option of actually replying to someone, anyone, to explain why it is that they can't follow instructions. †dismas†|(talk) 17:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

New user:MaraprI (sock?) with one edit made substantial changes with citation errors in article: Charles P. Rettig[edit]

Undo? I think it's either a sock or promotion. --Balintawak (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Generally, new users are welcomed, rather than reported to ANI. As for 'promotion', possibly, though it doesn't seem that blatant. And if you are going to accuse someone of being a sock, you should tell us who's sock you think it is. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The added content is full of citations to a law firm web site. It doesn't look right to me. I will work on cleaning it up. --Balintawak (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I think all new editors should be reported on ANI immediately. This would reduce editor retention to zero, and as older editors die or drop out we'd eventually have no editors at all. At that point there would be no more edit warring, no more conduct or content disputes, and no need for Arbcom. Paradise. EEng 17:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Great idea! --Balintawak (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Commons deleted a photo MaraprI uploaded. MaraprI requested undeletion stating that the law firm holds the copyright and he/she represents the law firm. So at the very least, the editor wasn't unbiased. --Balintawak (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

He is not here to build an encyclopedia[edit]

Stefka Bulgaria does not seem to be here for building an encyclopedia. I provide some diffs and leave the judgment to you admins:

1- He removes the contents on the ground that he can't find them in the cited sources, this is while they are indeed supported by the source:

A) Here, he keeps on removing contents. while they are supported by the sources. Again, he removes same content from another article, while the content is clearly seen in the source.
B) Again, the materials he removes here are fully supported by the cited source and I fixed his false removal.
C) In this edit he removes contents regarding bombing of US buildings by MEK, this is while the content is really supported by the source.

2- He writes a misleading edit summary for his edits and dishonestly removes other contents in between (some sort of Gaming):

A) Here, he removes some sourced content from the lead writing in the lead that Aaron Schwartz's source, here labeled as 'PSJLIA', is not reliable. This is while the most of the materials he removes has nothing to do with the Schwartz's source and are supported by the book by Jonathan R. White.
B) In this edit he removes a well sourced sentence, alleging in the edit summary that one of the sources (infoplease.com) is not reliable. Stefka refers to the discussion I started at RSN, where there is no consensus over using 'infoplease.com' and the springer book which uses 'infoplease.com' to cite the 16,000 figure. However there was not any objections against using other sources cited for 10,000 figure. In that discussion, Stefka Bulgaria himself says "...hence this figure [i.e. 16,000] cannot considered reliable". Stefka is clearly GAMING us by removing the 10,000 figure which is supported by other sources.
C) In this edit he removes two sentences each supported by two different sources. In the edit summary Stefka writes ‘Strategic Culture’ is a Fringe source but removes the second sentence cited to another reliable source.
D) Here and here, he pretends to be inserting quotes from a source, but is in fact removing the sourced materials.

3- Miscellaneous:

A) In this edit, he removes a whole section he does not like to see in the article, only because the title of the section is not matching with its content. He could simply edit the title and keep the well-sourced material.

The above diffs are only a brief overview of his recent edits in MEK and this editing pattern is just repeated in his previous edits. I've already discussed some of the points on the article talk page, although I think this is a behavioral issue and should be addressed by the admins. --Mhhossein talk 12:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Stefka, whether he is doing right edits or not (I don't have a opinion on that), is made in good faith. Saying he is "not here to build an encyclopedia" is really exaggerating. This shouldn't have gone to ANI, you should have waited for his response at the very least. He does a lot of constructive stuff on this site. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
But those diffs speak for themselves. --Mhhossein talk 17:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This repeated filing of complaints towards editors attempting to balance the MEK related articles (which are heavily skewed to the Iranian gvmt POV) - is not reasonable. In regards to the supplied, diffs - 1A - It would seem Stefka removed un-referenced information (as well as info sourced to the Christian Science Monitor) in a BLP article. 1B - is a rather CHERRYPICKED account of the thenation article (including removal this was "one website"). 1C - the first half of the paragraph is sourced to what appears to be a position paper which seems a somewhat dubious source for unattributed use. 2A - this is a student-edited journal that was removed - quite a sketchy source. 2B - [2] seems like a sketchy source, however it says "Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict. - which does not support - As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 - or rather is a blatant misrepresentation (as a large portion of the fatalities in the conflict were killed by the Iranian government). 2C - The econd sentence is sourced to a state department report - which is sketchy. 2D - seems like an expansion of content based on the source. 3A - perhaps one shouldn't add off-topic content to a section to begin with? Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    And all that being said - that a bit of information passes WP:V ("supported by the source") - does guarantee inclusion - e.g. per WP:NPOV. Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Note to viewers: Icewhiz appears up (needless to say it's sort of hounding) almost when ever I file things against users. @IW: Sketchy sketchy sketchy sketchy...Be realistic. Don't defend others at any price, editors will certainly judge your words and won't be mislead by your comments. You had the same behavior at AE and the other guy you always used to defend, got blocked for the third time. This is not good for you. --Mhhossein talk 05:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I had not intended to comment on this thread until I saw Mhhossein's above comment. I do not believe a user who defended a neo-nazi sock puppet (Expectant of Light) has much room to comment on who or what other users should defend, and I'd further recommend that MH keep WP:NPA in mind. While I do not feel Mhhossein has done much that is actionable, I have found them notably obtuse and overzealous at ANI. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Icarosaurvus: Be careful about what you say. You can take it as warning against making personal attacks. --Mhhossein talk 12:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Unless you didn't actualy defend Expectant of Light the above statement is nowhere near a personal attack. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
That's a point we can rest on...Cheers! --Mhhossein talk 18:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Given that the user did indeed defend Expectant of Light, I'd say it's most certainly not a personal attack. While I do not believe the two are connected in any meaningful way, other than sharing an interest in Iran, one has to be careful about defending another user simply because they share one's POV; something which Mhhossein has been less than stellar about in the past. Thus, I do not believe the user in question is particularly well qualified to comment on what one should or should not defend. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Icarosaurvus, with your 43 edits to mainspace in 4 years, I really think you should tone it down some lest someone think you're not here. Now, it is true that those who file reports an ANI should expect to come under scrutiny, but what you're doing here is not scrutinizing--it's simply casting aspersions. And whether someone defended a neo-Nazi or not has, as it happens, very little to do with this particular case, unless you can make a connection that somehow involves Stefka Bulgaria's edits. If you can't, stay away. Yes, please consider this a warning for a violation of [{WP:NPA]]. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I primarily edit portals; specifically, Portal:Current events. The idea that only mainspace edits should or do count is ludicrous; mainspace is only part of what keeps our encyclopedia functional. A large part, granted, but if we neglected the other components of this great work, it would not be the respectable site which it is today. While I disagree with your assessment of the above as a personal attack, I will leave this thread alone, unless pinged. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Unless requested otherwise, I'll reply to Mhhossein's remarks on the article's Talk page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • As requested, here's my review of Mhhossein's comments above:

1. A) Content I removed was concerning Masoud Keshmiri’s alleged affiliation with the MEK: The first source I removed does not mention the MEK, and second source says " The office of the revolutionary prosecutor identified one Masud Kashmiri, a Mojahed, as the secretary of the Prime Minister's office...", which is not the same as confirming that Keshmiri was a MEK member (I have not found a source that confirms the MEK took responsibility for Keshmiri). The IRI blamed numerous incidents on the MEK, many of which turned out to be false allegations. As discussed on WikiProject Iran’s Talk page (and as user Mhhossein is well aware of), IRI sources are not suitable for fact-checking of political opposition groups.
B) The Nation source is being used to support the MEK’s “Alleged involvement in Syrian Civil War”, but source does not mention Syria at all.
C) The section in question was titled “Anti-American campaign”, and the text in the article said: “In 1973 ten major American-owned buildings were bombed including those of the Plan Organization, Pan-American Airlines, Shell Oil Company, Hotel International, and Radio City Cinema.” What the source actually says is “The Mojahedin intensified their armed operations in the years between 1973 and 1975. In 1973 they fought two street battles with the Tehran police, and bombed ten major buildings including those of the Plan Organization, Pan-American Airlines, Shell Oil Company, Hotel International, Radio City Cinema, and an export company owned by a prominent Bha'i businessman.” Nothing in the sources here suggest that there was an anti-American campaign by the MEK (rather, it comes across as deliberate misrepresantation of the source), and I ended up including this information without the misleading insinuation.
2. A) A graduate student (Aaron Schwartz ) thesis was used to confirm that the MEK is currently a militant organization. The following text: “advocates the violent overthrow of the current government in Iran, while claiming itself as the replacing government in exile.” is also misleading (and not encyclopedic). This, on the other hand, would be more a accurate/encyclopedic description: “It was ‘based on Islamic and Socialist ideology’ and advocated ‘overthrowing the Iranian government and installing its own leadership’” (Katzman 2001; Country of Origin Research Information 2009, p.2).
B) This is user Snooganssnoogans’s assessment about using infoplease.com (and the springer book that uses 'infoplease.com') to cite that 16,000 have been killed by the MEK: “The stringency and quality of editorial oversight and peer review varies in publications by commercial academic publishers. That the book cites infoplease.com for that fact is an indication of poor editorial oversight and poor peer review, and reflects poorly on the author. It is sometimes the case that editorial collections (such as this book) are not independently peer-reviewed, and are only comprehensively edited (in terms of substance, not copyediting) by the editor of the edited collection. The book should not be considered a RS for the 16,000 figure.”
C) This report on the MEK reads like it was heavily influenced by the IRI (and there are reasons to believe that this may be the case). Big claims such as that the MEK "conducted attacks and assassinations on Western targets" should be backed up by more than a single report (that has since been taken down).
D) I don’t understand what the complaint is in the first instance (there is a typo error by me, but for the rest I simply updated the text from the Abrahamian source). In the second instance, I used better sources to clarify the sequence of events: The MEK accused the IRI of monopolizing power, which led to a protest where MEK sympathizers were killed, which led to the MEK retaliating against the IRI, which let to the IRI retaliating against the MEK, etc.)
3. A) There isn’t any evidence in the provided sources that the MEK was involved in the Syria conflict, yet Mhhossein continues to make this allegation. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments in response to the above allegations. (@Drimes: can you please see my explanation on his misinterpretations?):
1.
A) Besides the point that 'WikiProject Iran’s Talk page' is not the right venue for making global decisions regarding sources, I can say that there's absolutely no consensus over IRI sources being "not suitable for fact-checking of political opposition." Even you can't find any mentions of 'fact checking' in this semi private discussion he refers to. However, the dispute is not over the reliability of the Iranian sources. Above, he alleged that he had removed ([3], [4] and [5]) the first source since it had "not mention[ed] the MEK". This is while, in P:27 it reads"...subsequent investigations revealed that Kashmiri was an agent of the leftist People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), supported by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and blamed for 17,000 Iranian deaths during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988," and in P:28 it repeats the same thing: " Although the Bahonar-Rajai assassination was solved with identification of bomber Massoud Kashmiri as an MEK agent he remained unpunished."
B) This source clearly supports "MEK website gave a triumphalist account of the conquest, referring to ISIS as “revolutionary forces.”" Although the source is commenting on MEK's reaction to ISIL's activities in Iraq, not Syria, it's not a suitable reason to remove such a sourced content.
C) He removed materials regarding MEK's armed acts against U.S. personnel and civil bodies only since the section title. i.e. Anti-American campaign, was not suitable. I've already changed the title, but Stefka gradually removed the whole section based on his self-made allegations. I've now simply restored the section with a new title.
2.
A) Stefka already revealed that his edit summary was not in accordance with his edit.
'B) I think Stefka is digging himself deeper regarding the '10,000 deaths' issue, since we're not even talking about whether or not figure 16,000 is reliable. He has removed the well-sourced figure of 10,000. @Stefka: So, don't say infoplease is reliable or not, since that has nothing to do with our dispute. Stefka is GAMING us by removing the well-sourced 10,000 on an irrelevant basis. Yes, there were no consensus over 16,000 being supported by a reliable source, but we're not talking about that.
C) Again Stefka admits having used a misleading edit summary. In this edit stefka removed, among others, materials cited to a U.S. state report and now he revealed that the removal was only because he though the US report was heavily influenced by Iran!!! So we need to know Stefka's definition of reliable sources. In that edit, the edit summary tell us he's only removed the the materials cited to 'Strategic Culture', which is not correct.
D) Stefka's edit summary ([6] and [7]) reads "Quote from the source[s]". Are the edits only inserting quotes from a source into the article?
3.
I don't say there's "any evidence in the provided sources that the MEK was involved in the Syria conflict", rather I say Stefka "could simply edit the title and keep the well-sourced material" instead of removing them.
The case is really getting time wasting but I think it's worth trying to let the others know what I mean by Stefka's "dishonest" edits.--Mhhossein talk 13:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
A majority vote at WikiProjet Iran contended that IRI-controlled sources should be used for IRI positions. The majority vote argued that IRI-controlled sources are subject to censorship, particularly concerning political topics (where covering certain political topics can lead to imprisonment or execution).
Based on the fact that the IRI executes MEK sympathizers, I’ve tried to bring some neutrality to the article by making a distinction between IRI and non-IRI sources; as well as replacing weak sources / fringe statements with quotes from more established scholarly works. Many of these have been objected/reverted by Mhhossein, who comes across as having POV issue here. Mhhossein’s POV-pushing edits include:
  • Trying to establish the MEK is referred to with the derogatory term “Hypocrites” in Iran 1, 2, 3
  • Removing well-sourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
  • POV summaries from sources:
Source: The U.S. government has accused the group of helping Saddam brutally put down a Kurdish rebellion in the early 1990s, and of launching numerous attacks inside Iran.
Mhhossein: MEK assisted Saddam Hussein in "brutally" suppressing the 1991 uprisings in Iraq.[1]
Source: In the wake of the revolution, Khomeini grew suspicious of Rajavi’s ambitions and of the MeK’s Marxist slant and widespread popularity.
Mhhossein: After the fall of the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, when Khomeini got "suspicious of Rajavi’s ambitions and of the MeK’s Marxist slant.”
About Mhhossein’s points above, here’s my reply:
1A. “Keshmiri” is spelled “Kashmiri” in the source, which may be the reason why my word search initially gave no returns when I searched for it. Nevertheless, it was the IRI who identified Keshmiri as a MEK agent. Considering that the IRI was pinning whatever it could on the MEK at the time, these need to be presented as allegations rather than facts.
B. @Mhhossein, how is the statement "MEK website gave a triumphalist account of the conquest, referring to ISIS as ‘revolutionary forces’” a valid attribute to the “MeK’s alleged involved in Syria”?
C. @Mhhossein, again, the section was titled “Anti-American campaign” (a title that you you included). Here, I already made a point concerning Mhhossein’s misrepresantation of sources.
2A. As pointed out, there is a POV issue there.
B. First, the source says “Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict, which is not the same as “As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979”. Second, Ploughshares report is not RS, particularly on account of its links to the IRI.
3. Finding titles to random remarks is not my objective at the MEK page.
Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Too much boring...hey look, be careful about how you use the sources and edit the articles. You edit as if others are keeping their eyes closed. Already wasted my time on this. --Mhhossein talk 16:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I have explained my edits. The issue here is your POV pushing and constant reporting of editors that disagree with your edits, which you have yet to explain. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Boomerang[edit]

A WP:BOOMERANG is in order, due to repeated unactionable complaints filed here and in particular due to this diff Mhhossein brought himself - [8] that was blanket reverted by Mhhossein - beyond the sketchy source this is a blatant misrepresention of the source and a serious POV problem - transforming "Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict. - in the cited source into - As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 - turning a two sided casulty count (MEK-regime, regime-MEK) into a one sided one (MEK-regime) with highly POV language.Icewhiz (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Previous complaint here by blocked sock - [9] supported by Mhhossein. Another one by the blocked sock - [10] supported by Mhhossein (the sock got blocked for the nature of their comments prior to being discovered as a sock). Filing baseless ANI complaints every month or so against Stefka Bulgaria over a content dispite (in this case - without even engaging in the talk page of the article) - is not reasonable. @CaroleHenson: has been attempting to mediate in the content dispite(s) and might have input.Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Additional recent complaint against another user at ANI over content - [11].Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
The very providing of this diff clealry demonstrates your bad faith approach towards me. In that ANI, the reported user was to be sanctioned but survived after he changed his behavior. Read ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC) and Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC). --Mhhossein talk 12:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Article issues could have been dwelt on the article's Talk page. Mhhossein has resorted to making unactionable complaints against editors that disagree with him much too often. His POV pushing and inability to work constructively with others that do not share his perspective is disruptive. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose pending some evidence. @Icewhiz: Do you have any diffs or archive links of these "repeated unactionable complaints"? The two links above are to threads started by a different editor, and smearing the present OP by attempting to associate them with "a blocked sock" is clearly inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
BTW, it's not the first time folks have attempted to link Mhh with the David Duke fan in question. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but that thread was opened neither by Mhhossein nor about Stefka Bulgaria, and from what I can establish (by looking at who edit-warred with whom, which is as far as I'm willing to delve into this content dispute) Pahlevun's "side" is ... not Stefka Bulgaria's, whatever either one is, so the existence of that thread doesn't back up Icewhiz's claim. And I should point out that while I was on Icewhiz's "side" during the EoL mess, that was purely because EoL was a DavidDuke-citing, antisemiticcanard-spouting Holocaust-denier; from what I can see, nothing about this mess that isn't ... that ... is black-and-white. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Just one note to show the guy is wrong. On the killings issue, this scholarly source clearly supports the quote in question. It reads: "...Mojahedin was an organization of questionable reputation responsible for “the deaths of morethan 10,000Iranians” since its exile. Or you can read here: "...and its leader even boasted about killing thousands of Iranians while this cult served ex-Iraqi dictator's expansionist ambition," here: "...the group returned the favor and killed by its own claim more than two thousand regime leaders," here: "..."Since 1981 the [MEK] have claimed responsibility for murdering thousands of Iranians they describe as agents of the regime," the report said." Also, this source suggests that this archive Washington Times article supports the figure in question. Where are those "repeated unactionable complaints" or those "baseless ANI complaints every month or so [filed] against Stefka Bulgaria" by me? --Mhhossein talk 12:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
    Mhhossein restored this (which seems somewhat sketchy) as a source, and it does ineed read ""Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict." Nearly all sources, unless quoting the Iranian regime, refer to bi-sided conflict deaths - MEK's militia sustained quite a bit of casulties.Icewhiz (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Responding to Mhhossein's points above:

1. According to Piazza's article, the alleged "death of more than 10,000 Iranians" figure derived from an alleged U.S. Senate statement published on The Iran Times (Islamic Republic of Iran-controlled media has been proposed inadequate for fact-checking for political opposition groups on account of current censorship issues in Iran, including a misinformation campaign by the Islamic Republic of Iran against the MEK).[2][3][4][5]

References

  1. ^ Graff, James (December 14, 2006). "Iran's Armed Opposition Wins a Battle — In Court". Time. Archived from the original on April 28, 2011. Retrieved April 13, 2011. Cite uses deprecated parameter |deadurl= (help)
  2. ^ https://books.google.ca/books?id=2AVR16hSwAwC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=mojahedin+misinformation&source=bl&ots=Xpt25UT1sH&sig=lmIkUo2zwo83_0O9aINdD1i2MhQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjt-PdsNHcAhUo0FkKHeB8Ckk4FBDoATAEegQIBhAB#v=onepage&q=mojahedin%20misinformation&f=false
  3. ^ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tehrans-futile-attempts-at-discrediting-the-cause-for-regime-change-in-iran/
  4. ^ https://books.google.ca/books?id=_ac30INKAu4C&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=mek+mois&source=bl&ots=dihePewqzH&sig=PHcZHRt_n7J0SPz4vBcMFAuDUUk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOlK-Doc_cAhWkyoMKHa9dC2EQ6AEwDXoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=mek%20mois&f=false
  5. ^ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/is-iran-expanding-its-spying-and-lobbying-efforts

2. Mhhossein's second source is an Opinion Piece on USA today written by Hamid Babaei, who appears to have links the Islamic Republic of Iran (the article is reminiscent of the misinformation campaign noted above).
3. Mhhossein's third source is far from being RS.
4. Mhhossein's fourth source quotes a State Department report that does not mention a particular figure of how many died. Also considering that there have been thousands of deaths on both sides, resuming in the article that As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 is clearly POV pushing.
5. Here's a list of Mhhossein's unactionable complaints against different editors: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, here are a couple of previous reports against user Mhhossein for POV-pushing: [22], [23] Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh...sorry. Both are some years old cases. The first was opened by a sock and the second was nearly ending into a Boomerang for the user commencing the report. Claearly shows you're doing your best to find something against me.--Mhhossein talk 19:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Those are to show that Drmies had already warned you that your POV pushing was disruptive. Some of your unactionable complaints against different editors, however, are more recent. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Stefka Bulgaria, said Drmies has a pretty good track record when it comes to POV warnings, but one wonders how that is relevant here. Now, in the section above you said you'd reply to the charges on the article talk page. I suggest you answer them here. You really don't want me and a bunch of other admins to turn off the Alabama game, make a pot of coffee, and wake up to investigate these charges and draw our conclusions without your input. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Stefka Bulgaria is not sad with the marginal discussions distracting the admin's eyes from the the diffs I provided. Thanks to the Icewhiz's defenses, Stefka's failure at replying to them is losing its importance. Anyway, I'd like to add one point in response to Stefka; His in vain 'censorship' accusations aside, Piazza's article makes use of an Iran Times article dealing with a U.S. Senate statement. The simple point is that The Iran Times, in contrast to what Stefka alleged, was ‬"founded‭ ‬in Washington‭ ‬D‭.‬C‭. ‬in‭ ‬1970‭, ‬in‭ ‬accordance‭ ‬with‭ ‬U‭.‬S‭. ‬federal‭ ‬and‭ ‬local regulations‭,‬" hence has nothing to do with the Iranian government. Had Stefka bothered to check the sources and contents of the articles before making edits, there would not be such a discussion. --Mhhossein talk 13:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
The Iran Times is a fringe publication with a sole editor, does not qualiy as RS. I have responded to Dmries request above. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
At first it was unreliable since it had some relations with Iran and now that otherwise is proved, it's a fringe source! Maybe John Wiley & Sons and editors of 'Digest of Middle East Studies' need to get aware of it. Btw, your link does not say the mentioned guy is the sole editor of the source. --Mhhossein talk 14:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
"Javad Khakbaz, the sole owner and editor of the Iran Times". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
He might be the sole owner but not certainly the sole editor. Anyway, it's a time wasting discussion. The John Wiley & Sons source refers to a Senate report. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP.--Mhhossein talk 11:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Iran Times is not RS, and no link/reference is provided to the alleged US report (all of which simply reflects on the author). Your John Wiley & Sons source has a number of other fascinating statements such as:
  • "This resistance is depicted as the vanguard of a popular struggle against a traitorous clique that has betrayed both ideals of the 1979 Iranian revolution and the memories of those martyred in it." (page 10)
  • "The Mojahedin present themselves as a liberating Islamist alternative." (page 10)
  • "The Mojahedin are, and continue to be, an ideological party committed to a radical, progressive interpretation of Islam tempered with familiar themes of liberation found in Shi’I doctrine."(page 11)
  • "Specifically, the MEK look toward the creation, by armed popular struggle, of a society in which ethic, gender, or class discrimination would be obliterated."(page 11)
And many more.... Can you guess why I haven't included these in the article, despite it coming from a John Wiley & Sons publication? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
We don't edit based on YOUR standards, including your own definition of Reliable Sources. --Mhhossein talk 12:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Are you saying then that these statements mentioned above would be ok to be included in the article just because the source is a John Wiley & Sons publication? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

151.82.153.227 has some connection to 151.51.0.0/17 151.0.197.64/29[edit]

I believe 151.82.153.227 has a relationship to 151.51.0.0/17 151.0.197.64/29. I think we should merge these two along with 151.82.153.227, and block them all together — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B045:A446:4059:8DE:E3BF:7527 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It took me a minute to figure this out. But, yes, it looks like 151.82.153.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is evading a previous block. I've blocked this new IP address. If more show up, I can maybe do a range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Date vandal[edit]

Blocked by Vanamonde. (Swarmtalk) 07:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anyone want to expedite the block of 47.136.32.60 (talk) over date vandalism across multiple articles? —Farix (t | c) 03:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A perhaps trivial issue[edit]

That's enough monkey business --Tarage (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If a Wikipedia editor such as User:RexxS accuses another Wikipedia editor of being less intelligent than a orangutan, as they did at Module talk:WikidataIB#Wikilinks for redirects, I suggest that an admonition might be in order. (I found this rather amusing, other editors might not.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

He did use the phrase "an orangutan" correctly though. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 21:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I quite said that. My comment was "I could train an orangutan to solve these sort of problems", which I believe is not a accusation about anybody's intelligence. Of course, I then went on to opine that "If an editor in the 100,000 Club can't do it easily, then I submit they need to take the cotton wool out of their ears and put it in their mouth.", which is a strong suggestion to listen, rather than talk. Nevertheless, orangutans are quite intelligent (even ones that are members of the 100,000 Club), and some may be upset at the comparison with certain editors. So, on the assumption that I have indeed offended some primate or another, I offer my unreserved apologies to them, and I'll do my level best to be more circumspect in future. --RexxS (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually I believe RexxS has already got an army of orangutans adding stuff to WikiData. Johnbod (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I wish I was so fluent I could use the word "circumspect" correctly in conversation. Hell, I can't even say "circuitous" without thinking about it. Damn you RexxS--I could train a monkey to type fast and maybe even correctly, but even if you're just an ordinarily languaged human, I'm merely a trilobite. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I wish I had, John. They'd do a better job than the current bunch of automatons. --RexxS (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abdu Hany[edit]

Reported user has been indefinitely blocked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abdu Hany is edit warring to add unsourced content in a BLP at Ahmed Mekky (actor) (1, 2, 3, 4). Can an uninvolved admin block him? He's already blocked on ar.wiki, and it looks like he's decided to be disruptive on en.wiki, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, I just noticed that the dates proposed for his birth date aren't even the same between edits. Some of them are 1978, and some are 1980. I think this might just be another date vandal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rangeblock requested for grammar warrior[edit]

Ponyo blocked the Los Angeles range Special:Contributions/2605:E000:1301:4462:0:0:0:0/64 for three days ending earlier today, but the person has started up again with grammar warring of the exact same nature, changing "crew was" to "crew were".[24] The IP Special:Contributions/2605:E000:1301:4462:C049:D05D:2B1D:A481 has come out of the rangeblock to resume this kind of grammar warring. Parsecboy was also dealing with this person before the earlier block.

The person behind this IP range was offering unhelpful Teahouse contributions, for instance this rude invitation to self-destruct, and this incomprehensible complaint which required Cullen328 and Nick Moyes to perform further research. The number of Teahouse contributions from this range is large, and most of them are time wasters, not helpful.

A third area of disruption by this person has been in film plot sections, where he/she tangled with TheOldJacobite over The Last Samurai and The Departed, among others. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Additional context. GMGtalk 19:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Just at this moment I don't see how the disruptive behaviour has resumed, they're just making grammar corrections, unless you're saying those corrections are wrong? Also, just noting that an IPv6 /64 is functionally equivalent to a single IPv4 address - all addresses within the /64 should be presumed to be the same user in the same way that discrete IPv4 addresses should be presumed to be the same user (at one time, they're dynamic, etc). I'm not even really sure why we *can* block individual IPv6 addresses - should just always block the /64. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The grammatical corrections are, in fact, correct. That is: unless any of the ships affected really did have a crew of just one person (plain impossible). Since crews are resolutely plural, then "the crew were rescued" is entirely correct and plural. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Not necessarily. It is more of an English variation matter, since collective nouns are given a different grammatical number depending on the variation. For example, at least in British English, collective nouns (which "crew" can be) tend to be treated as plural ("...the crew were...") rather than singular, the latter being more common in other variations and especially in American English. Moreover, "crew" can refer to a single crew member, in which case singular forms are due irrespective of English variation; likewise with ships whose crew comprises one member, which may be the case in certain contexts however rare. —Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 23:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Per Nøkkenbuer, there is no universal correct way to refer to collective nouns of a singular form. There are two approaches: treat the collective as what it represents (called notional agreement), and treat the collective as a unit unto itself (called formal agreement). It also is NOT as simple as "British English does one, and American English does the other". There are situations within each dialect where one form is favored over the other, but there are some cases that BrEng treats notionally and AmEng treats formally, and vice-versa. The problem comes not from people, in good faith, changing one they think is wrong because they are only exposed to one variety of English, the problem comes when people are informed of the fact that multiple varieties of English exist, and refuse to believe it. --Jayron32 23:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
English varieties does not come into it. With the exception of one article affected, all the ships are British registered and therefore British English is the language variety that should be used. The sole exception (French frigate Vénus (1780)) is about a French registered ship. However the edit to that article was not a grammatical correction but a minor CE)). TheVicarsCat (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
From: Collins Dictionary of [British] English Usage. "A collective noun meaning 'a number of' can mean either 'some' or 'a large (or small) number', and is accordingly treated as plural." It does note an exception where the collective noun is qualified by what it is a number of. Thus 'the crew were rescued' is correct (because 'crew' means 'a [large] number of [sailors]'), but the cumbersome 'crew of sailors was rescued' would be similarly correct (because there is only one 'crew of sailors'). TheVicarsCat (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Which is why I already pre-agreed with you before you objected to my agreement with you. I'm sorry I wasn't clear. When I said " the problem comes when people are informed of the fact that multiple varieties of English exist, and refuse to believe it." what I really meant was " the problem comes when people are informed of the fact that multiple varieties of English exist, and refuse to believe it." --Jayron32 11:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Not done: I think it's fair to say here that this rangeblock isn't going to be actioned at the moment - it now appears to be a content dispute of some sort (a grammar dispute - the best sort). Would it be possible to continue this discussion on the talk page of the articles in question, or more appropriately in this matter, some sort of dispute resolution page? Much appreciated y'all Face-smile.svg - TNT 💖 09:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Continued reverts over the span of several months[edit]

Some months ago (early July), I was involved in an ANI thread due to my incorrect usage of AWB to update the use of "U.S." to "US" in usages of {{Episode table}}. After this thread, the general consensus was that editors should determine the usage of "U.S." or "US" on each article separately, and implement it thus. I understood the consequences of this, I was allowed to reapply for and was granted AWB rights for my account, and everything ended all well and smooth.

My question is that, while I understood and came to terms with the wrongdoing of my edits, it then acceptable for an editor (The Optimistic One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)) to mass revert those edits over the span of several months via the revert function, spamming my notifications in the process? Here are screenshots of these reverts. This continues despite my requests to cease this by moving to editing the article rather than reverting, firstly at User talk:The Optimistic One#Reverts (at a later point, a seemingly passive-aggressive comment was added in another language; the text in the diff apparently translates to "Oh, and thank you for the heads up."), then User talk:The Optimistic One#September 2018 today when I received a further nine revert notifications, after the first thread (indicating that the editor is doing this deliberately to spite me).

The biggest issue with this so far is that these edits are becoming disruptive in the fact that the editor is blinding reverting edits that are just by me without checking that it's the right edit, and thus reverting the incorrect edit. As a "punishment" for my edits, which I already received through the removal of the AWB right to my account, do I now have to deal with this for however many more months? Is my "punishment" for the linked thread to wake up in the morning at the end of next year to another dozen reverts? -- AlexTW 05:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, most of those reverts happened around the time Alex made the edits, I told Alex; Those edits had to be reverted, I have a job to do just like every other Wikipedian, and part of that job is reverting disruptive edits. That revert was a fluke, I don't how it turned out like that. By the time Alex had messaged me, I was reverting his disruptive edits. Every recent revert I made was because I stumbled across Alex's edits of a particular season, I would then revert all the edits made to the rest of the seasons. Why should I waste time scrolling through sections of articles when I can just revert his edits? If he's going to get worked up about it then why doesn't he self-revert his own edits. It's been nearly three months, they're up there long enough and all should be removed. I'm going to stop reverting them from now on due to the backlash. The Optimistic One (talk) 05:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
As can be seen from the screenshots, most of them are actually recent, so they're not around the time the edits were made. That revert wasn't a "fluke", it was you not checking what you were reverting and just doing it blindly. To paraphrase you: Why should you waste time scrolling through histories of articles when you can just edit a single section? As for the reverting, they didn't have to be reverted, see my initial paragraph - After this thread, the general consensus was that editors should determine the usage of "U.S." or "US" on each article separately, and implement it thus. It was up to the editors of each of the separate articles to determine it, it wasn't a "had to" revert, nor was it a case where I had to self-revert - I actually opened up a second thread and I was strongly recommended against doing that.
If you're going to stop reverting them, then this thread could be closed, but I'm still curious, just as a single editor, as to whether it's acceptable. -- AlexTW 05:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Reverting your edits was the quickest way of getting the job done. I would have scrolled through sections and histories if I couldn't revert your edits. I told you, if your going to get worked up about it then why don't you self-revert your own edits. Those edits were disruptive. The Optimistic One (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Did you not read? I already said nor was it a case where I had to self-revert - I actually opened up a second thread and I was strongly recommended against doing that. -- AlexTW 06:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I did. Can you send me a link to the thread? The Optimistic One (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@The Optimistic One: In the followup thread, I urged Alex to do a second AWB run to mass revert his mass changes. Two others also urged him to self-revert his changes in some capacity, and one more mused about "how best to correct a disruptive automated mass edit", which I guess we can throw in that camp too (though it's questionable whether they understood the situation based on the comparison they made). However, four editors also took the position that the changes were essentially no big deal and that they can be manually changed back, as-needed, on an individual basis. So, that's an even split, and there was no formal reading of consensus anyways. I'm not sure where you're getting the notion that "Those edits had to be reverted" or "Those edits were disruptive", but that sentiment never manifested as a consensus. The only issue was that it was an an improper AWB run. The WP:AWBRULES violation was borderline, and much of the backlash he received stemmed from his attitude, not from the changes themselves. I don't think it's any better to mass revert these minor changes without a consensus than it was to make them in the first place. You're not being any better than Alex in terms of making mass changes without a consensus. This could have been sorted out months ago via an RfC. Somebody could have just stuck an RfC template on the original Wikiproject discussion! Instead, you're being unilateral and belligerent, which was supposedly the problem to begin with! (Swarmtalk) 19:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@Swarm: I think that there should be another AWB. People will get confused when on one article it reads US and on the other it reads U.S. I didn't pay attention to that thread at the time, so I didn't hear about this "split". They also said they can be manually changed back, as-needed, on an individual basis. That pretty much says that if anyone stumbles across an edit, they can change it back. And I'm also not being "unilateral and belligerent". The Optimistic One (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I find it difficult to believe that any reader cares about the periods. I suggest you find something more useful to do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, what he said. This was an incident from July, it's high time you move on. (Swarmtalk) 06:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Joe DiRosa[edit]

Article deleted, user blocked indef, nothing else to do here--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For more context, look at this COIN discussion. The article about him (Joe DiRosa) appears to have been made by single-purpose accounts, possibly sockpuppets or users affiliated with him. Either this person is a shill or this is an extreme WP:CIR issue.

Basically, he began by creating a promotional article about a company named Onox, Inc. I tagged it for speedy deletion, and afterwards he made an equivalent draft, which an AFC reviewer rejected for the same reasons. I then noticed he edited the article about himself (and added a picture). The article is now under AfD. This is a very complicated situation and I'm not sure what to do about it. funplussmart (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This editor seems to be a very strong example of WP:NOTHERE. First, he only creates promotional articles on himself or people he knows, all of which appear to be non-notable subjects: (Joe DiRosa, New York Artist Series, Draft:Onox, Inc.) and so on. Second, he has the balls to come to his own AfD and argue vociferously that he's notable, wasting everyone's time. He's at COIN for the above articles and actions. His whole approach is to use Wikipedia as a promotional noticeboard. I see no editing towards the good of the greater project.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I was dumb enough to create an account with my own name. I created one page on a company called Onox, Inc. and went in and cleaned up the structure of 2 pages related to me. No information really added and no citations added. Now I have been consistently attacked , added to virtually every board they can think of and they are even chasing down pages which I havent published yet.. It is consistent harassment because I didnt hide real name with my screen name. They have participated in biased editing, picked apart every edit I've made and seem to think it woul dbe a game to target me. Many of these editors have created pages which are less recognizable then mine and they seem to continually kill citations and make comments without properly reading the articles. This and this isn't and its all just harassment. I've replied nicely, i've offered alternate citations in virtually all situations, and i havent tried to publish a page except the first one. They continue to harass even though I could have just published these pages myself if I wanted to.. no need to make a draft page since I have the required number of edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedirosa (talkcontribs) 23:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

oh and those articles you seem to think that are so promotional have been there for nearly 10 years and had many editors come through and not put them up for deletion. Its strange that no other editors over the years seemed to deem them a problem and even made edits to them. Not till i created a editing account under my own name and created the page Onox, Inc. did this all become an issue. Joedirosa (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way, this user has now been blocked for socking. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Genre warring 2[edit]

IP blocked 72 hours for continued unsourced genre changes. For anyone who doesn't know, this is such a chronic problem that it has its own set of warnings—{{uw-genre1}}–{{uw-genre4}}. Ideally, these types of genre-warriors should receive the standard four escalating warnings in the same vein as any other problem user, and then an administrator should block. Philosophical/academic considerations as to the role of genres in articles should be discussed in an appropriate meta-forum, and not endlessly bantered over while reported users continue to disrupt articles with unsourced genre changes. (Swarmtalk) 07:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

190.234.55.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been changing genres again, without consensus, with or without reliable sources after final warning. Reporting here because disruptive editing such as genre warring have been increasingly denied at WP:AIV. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 02:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, both the IP and you were being mildly disruptive by edit-warring with each other. However, the issue was 12 hours ago and hopefully that's the end of it. If it starts up again, WP:AN3 is thataway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I see nothing blockworthy here. I’ve left them a note explaining how sourcing works. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Ritchie333, I've seen you repeatedly let vandals have their way by downplaying legitimate vandal reports such as this one. What's the deal? You're out of step with decisive admins such as Swarm, Materialscientist, Widr, etc. Your laissez-faire attitude is very frustrating for veteran users who are down in the trenches working to maintain the integrity of the wiki, the people who have the best view of the pattern of disruption. Your comment about the Peru IP "being mildly disruptive" takes the cake. IP 190.234.55.196 is a dangerous falsifier with edits such as this one changing album ratings upward to falsely give the album a better score. His genre-warring extends to Spanish-language Wikipedia. But, hey, let's give the guy a free pass. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
That's probably because none of those admins (AFAIK) have improved over 100 articles to GA status, so they don't know what it's like to do lots of work on an article to know what's important and what isn't. This is just a silly edit war over trivial stuff in the infobox which is not as important as the main prose and sourcing in the article. Don't you remember what I did to Hammond organ to get it up to GA status, for example? Anyway, it's not vandalism. And if Swarm, Widr and Materialscientist ever want me to do a GA review for them, I will. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
You've been right many times but you're wrong about this not being vandalism. It's absolutely vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you Binksternet this is the exact reason I'm no longer going to report this type of disruption. Both Ritchie333 and TonyBallioni have been denying reports at AIV, so I started reporting them here, now they come here and deny them here also. I fell if they are not willing to handle disruption reports like these they should not act on these and let other admins who are more in touch with the SOP of genre warring. Maybe I can make reports at Swarm if they wouldn't mind. Maybe we can create Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against disruptive editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I think Tony has covered adequately why the original report didn't warrant a block. When I look at disruption that is not blatant vandalism, copyvios, BLPs, I look at both sides and treat the parties as equally and fairly as I can. If you're upset because we didn't punish a user in the way you wanted them to, too bad. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I would have made that block too: I was about to, and Swarm beat me too it. The difference there was that you had a long term SPA (3 weeks) who had been ignoring communication for just as long and editing against consensus. Here it looked like you had an IP that was swapping unsourced information for other unsourced information. An explanation beyond an essay that doesn’t have community consensus would have been helpful. Binksternet’s explanation was great: it’s stale, or I’d block. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I know some Wikipedians think it's a very serious issue whether Led Zeppelin (album) is considered "hard rock", "blues rock" and / or "heavy metal" in the infobox, but I am pretty confident that most people in the real world couldn't give a flying monkeys one way or the other. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The issue here is that patently adding false information like that to articles absolutely is vandalism, but genre warring isn’t (and I do not consider it a reason to block on its own without other clear disruption like edit warring or editing against consensus.) The issue here is for me and a few other admins I’ve talked to about the AIV backlog complaints (cc: K6ka as I know he has thoughts on this) established users reverting minor infobox changes of new users looks exactly like the type of content dispute that we aren’t supposed to get involved in. If someone is falsifying record sales performances and the like I care a lot. If someone is arguing that Album X is grunge metal and it’s called that in Rolling Stone but one of the page watchers thinks it’s heavy metal, yeah, I don’t think policy allows me to intervene there. We need diffs and policy based reasons to block and I typically prefer to see that new users have had citations explained to them rather than templated about changing genres. If someone continues to edit against consensus after this, then I’m fine blocking, but a random “this IP is genre warring.” with nothing else isn’t helpful. Now that it’s clear the user has been adding false information, I don’t object to a block if it starts up again, and I’ll watchlist their talk so I can deal with it quickly in the future (and anyone is free to report it on my talk.) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
In the case of blatantly falsifying information, the stock Twinkle templates aren't really of much use. They're too generic, confrontational, and cannot explain the specific instance. I find it much better to revert, and if necessary leave a message like, "Why did you change 'x' rating from 2.5 to 3.5? The source [link] clearly says 2.5". Then you can follow it up, saying, "I'm sorry, but I got no answer, so I'm going to have to block you until I get an explanation". A better result all round, in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Since you two (TonyBallioni and Ritchie333) don't consider genre warring to be a problem, can you step away from responding to AIV and ANI reports about genre warring? Many other editors and admins think this is a significant problem. Let us do our work, those of us who labor against the incessant waves of genre warriors. Binksternet (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Or, as with "pro" wrestling, we could just drop all coverage of genres as not worth the drama. EEng 22:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Provide diffs that justify blocks under the blocking policy, like you did above, and I will block. The issue here is that admins are not supposed to use their tools to pick winners in content disputes. A bunch of final warning templates to new users without ever explaining to them how to suggest a change to an article is not the way to go about this. In any other area of the encyclopedia, we wouldn’t be blocking here without even attempting to discuss with someone. Music pages shouldn’t be an exception. If there is actually community consensus to upgrade genre warring to an info page or guideline, then I think an RfC could be useful to clarify the community as a whole’s view, but right now, most genre warring reports I see are asking me to ignore the blocking policy because of a wikiproject essay, which I’m not willing to do. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Then please stop handling those request. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I don’t think there is community consensus that supports blocking new users for changing grunge metal to grunge rock without actually talking to them. As both Ritchie and I have said above, we’d both block if it was clear that the users actually knew what was going on so that they could engage on article talk pages, but the templated message for genre warring makes no sense and doesn’t make any attempt to explain to new users how to go about editing. I already have said that I agree with Swarm’s block above: that was a long-term pattern by an SPA. The reports I usually see though are of editors who are interested in music and have been templated and reverted with no actual discussion. That’s a content dispute with templates. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm with EEng on this one; an RfC to expunge the concept of music genres from infoboxes for ever and ever would get my vote. (Or !vote). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I would also vote "yes" to remove genres from all musician, album and song infoboxes. Proposals along these lines have been raised in the past, but they never have enough backing to stick. In November 2007, the genre parameter was removed from Infobox musical artist but it was restored the next hour. In October 2008, the genre parameter was removed from two infoboxes, but two days later an extensive discussion was raised to restore it, and the genre was restored ten days later. In the meantime, we must deal with the presence of the genre parameter, which unfortunately acts like a honeypot for all the angry, fanatic, lazy or obsessive people who want to edit Wikipedia but don't want to mess with prose or sourcing. It's this assortment of less skillful editors that are the most frustrating because of their uncommunicative behavior or because of their incorrigible persistence. Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Just for the record, I would also support removing the genre parameter from all music related infoboxes, but we would still have genre warring but now it would be in prose. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Require a citation from a reliable source supporting the genre listed. The "genre" parameter is useful when I'm looking up a band or performer I don't personally know, but I recognize that genre warring has been a p