Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1002

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Complaint about BlueboyLI[edit]

This is a dispute about when WP:OVERLINK applies. The specific issue appears to be does the state need to be wikified if a major city in the state is already wikified. This is fairly easy. Either is acceptable, and to edit-war over it is disruptive. You want to take it to the article Talk page to get a consensus, knock yourselves out, but I strongly urge you to just let it go. Finally, reverting in these cases without edit summaries is very poor practice.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2019 (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.

I copied this from my talk page so I can get some input.

Hi Mvcg66b3r, I need your help in regards of New Jersey based TV station for the primary New York City market. A user goes by the name of User:BlueboyLI has revert my cause I forgot to explain in the edit summary. I revert it back to my version combining your version. Mvcg66b3r, I know you clean up vandalism you warned some vandals for a potential block. Now could you talk to User:BlueboyLI to never revert and vandalize NJ based TV stations for the primary city market. The NJ based stations for the NYC market are WNET (PBS), WWOR-TV (MyNetworkTV), WNJU (Telemundo) and WXTV-DT (Univision). If User:BlueboyLI reverting my edits to the BlueboyLI's version, please revert it to my version and watch the four TV stations foir avoiding another revert this is to avoid edit wars. If BlueboyLI continue reverting, put User:BlueboyLI for Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV). I will be happy to assist you. Thanks for your consideration. Reply me back ASAP. Thanks and have a great day. 2001:569:7C07:2600:94E6:94DF:A64:37BD (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I know what the IP is saying, but what BlueboyLI is doing is disruptive editing, not vandalism. His edits were probably in good faith, but to see him revert my "good" edits is quite annoying. WP:AIV is not the place, but if this isn't either, maybe someone could send it to the right forum. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, I would try just the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard as the matter is not urgent nor protracted. Cheers! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 02:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm.... I may have spoke to soon. This might be the place. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 02:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Mvcg66b3r Could you provide diffs of the edits in question? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@CaptainEek: This one [1], just occurred within the last few minutes. Also: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] And why do we have to "explain" every edit? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) @Mvcg66b3r – It is good practice to always use an edit summary in order to explain your edits. If you don't summarize your edit or provide a reason for edit, it is easy for users to believe that you are not making constructive edits. "Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted incorrectly, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was." From what I see, BlueboyLI explained most of his edits with a concise summary grounded in policy, whereas you generally did not. Edit summaries are a good place to engage in discussion, so as to prevent conflict. Just as communication prevents drama in relationships, so too does it on Wikipedia. Have you engaged in any discussion with BlueboyLI? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@CaptainEek: I have discussed with Mvcg66b3r both his persistent overlinking and edit warring going back to November 2017, seemingly to no avail. I have copied and pasted from his talk page:

Your edits contain too many overlinks ie: New Jersey is not needed after Newark, New Jersey. Please familiarize yourself with the following information on when to link: MOS:OVERLINKBlueboyLI (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

You have consistently reverted my edits without bothering to discuss on the talk page and have the audacity to say I started an edit war. Again: Your edits contain too many overlinks ie: New Jersey is not needed after Newark, New Jersey. Please familiarize yourself with the following information on when to link: MOS:OVERLINK As for leaving out the "class a's" that information is already in the info-box. The lede is meant to be brief, not filled with information that's already linked. BlueboyLI (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

PS I went over this very same topic with you a year ago, and you seem to have learned nothing in the year since.

Why do you keep reverting my edits? They're more in depth. And why do you add stuff only to remove it later? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

   Your edits contain too many overlinks ie: Connecticut is not needed after Hartford, Connecticut. Please familiarize yourself with the following information on when to link [1]BlueboyLI (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said, my edits are more in-depth. Yours are kind of bland. And please don't lecture me with that "overlinking" stuff. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes less is more, esp. when editing lead articles. Your edits lead to reader fatigue with unnecessary redundant links. Other edits are incorrect ie: placing full power stations in the translator field or confusing programming services with networks. BlueboyLI (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

BlueboyLI (talk) 07:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

BlueboyLI (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)



I have explained my reasons for the edits. Reverting edits that were made without explanation are not disruptive and certainly not vandalism. Bringing another editor in to avoid the rules is certainly suspect. I suggest the ip go on the talk pages before arbitrarily making reverts or perhaps the ip can create a user name so we can discuss the matter. BlueboyLI (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no real idea why this is on ANI or even what's being requested here. But most of what I'm seeing is a content dispute. Editors shouldn't call edits vandalism when they're not, but from what I can tell the only thing that really happened was someone mentioned bringing a case to AIV. Likewise while in most cases, editors shouldn't revert just because a change was undiscussed, editors are generally allowed to revert a disputed undiscussed change per WP:BRD. You all need to discuss on the relevant article talk pages and not via reverting and edit summaries. If you can't achieve consensus by yourselves, use some form of dispute resolution. And I said "all". I note that the WNET talk page has not been edited since 2012 really (a single 2016 edit bu the IArchiver bot) [16]. WWOR-TV since 2013 [17] (again a single 2017 edit from the IArchiver bot). So please don't tell us it's the other editor's fault. Whichever editor you are, it's surely your fault. The fact that some of the copied stuff above is from 2017 is further evidence that whatever has gone on here, all of you seem to have failed to use the basic steps of dispute resolution. Brief comments on user talk pages may be okay, but more substantial discussion about article content should either be on the article talk pages or other relevant places (suitable noticeboards etc). Clearly the discussion on the user talk pages are getting no where otherwise you wouldn't all be still at loggerheads over 1 year later. So bring it to the article talk pages or wherever else appropriate and if no one else joins in use some form of dispute resolution to try and attract them (WP:3O, WP:RFC etc). Also remember to keep the discussion focused on what makes the article better in accordance to our guidelines, policies and what the reader would reasonably want. Not alleged wrong doings about who should or shouldn't have made what edit or revert. Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I do agree there does seem to be some overlinking going on. I also have zero idea why this was linked above [18] since while possibly the edit summary was unnecessary (it looks to me like it could easily be some sort of accident), the revert was clearly good. Nil Einne (talk)

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.

NickH2001[edit]

NickH2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user has disruptively edited the Walt Disney World Railroad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Disneyland Railroad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) articles despite four separate warnings over a week's time on his talk page, none of which received a response. He has committed a variety of rule violations, but the main one is WP:TOOMUCH, where he insists on ornamenting the articles with as many trivial, unremarkable pieces of information that he can find (examples: Special:Diff/880288000, Special:Diff/880467062, Special:Diff/881368719).

I should also mention that although this username is less than a month old, and the user claims to be new on his user page, evidence suggests that he has been editing anonymously for years, specifically under Lexington, South Carolina-based mobile IPs starting with 2606:a000:131b (article histories with strong correlations: Admiral Joe Fowler Riverboat, Norfolk and Western Railway class J (1941), The Princess and the Frog, Ralph Breaks the Internet, Southern Railway 722). This same person's disruptive editing affected the Disney train articles years before despite similar warnings (example: User talk:2606:A000:131B:E9:E587:A1F6:499C:2986), and they were given semi-protection to stop him, specifically. I can provide more information on this matter, if requested. The point is that this user is not new and hence is not ignorant in regards to the rules.

The fact that these two Disney train articles are both featured articles means that if his editing is allowed to continue, they could potentially lose this status. I do not want that to happen. Since he's not getting the message, I believe the best course of action is a standard three-day block to make it crystal clear that what he is doing is wrong. Jackdude101 talk cont 04:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see much effort at dispute resolution on the relevant talk pages or on NickH2001's talk page beyond the lobbing of warning templates. On the other hand, communication is required. Nick has not responded at all and has not edited since 0320. Perhaps they are asleep. Dlohcierekim talk 06:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Don't know about knowing rules, and there are just so many to keep track of. (not templenting the regulars is an essay, of course, but never mind.) They may think they are doing a good job. They may be deeply hurt by your assertions. Dlohcierekim talk 06:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: The reason why it's mainly warnings on his talk page is that myself and others have been trying to reason with him for years, but his behavior has hardly changed. As an example, see this historical conversation from 2016 (at that time, he was using the IP 24.88.92.254): Talk:Walt Disney World Railroad#Lilly Belle's return. By the way, he has attempted to delete that conversation more than once, most recently in December 2018 here: Special:Diff/874546704. This user doesn't care whether he is doing a good job (i.e.: WP:NOTHERE), or else he would have listened to me by now. Something has to be done if we don't want his poor editing to continue in perpetuity. Jackdude101 talk cont 14:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I was asked by Jackdude101 to weigh in here, due to my previous involvement with the article.
I think we have several things going on here, all jamming in together at one time.
Some time back, the article was is pretty bad shape. Articles related to kids' media and articles related to trains both tend to gather extensive piles of unsourced trivia. Articles where those two categories meet (Hello, Thomas!) tend to get even more. I made a quick run at flushing the flotsam and Jackdude put in a good bit of work fleshing out and sourcing what remained -- laudable work that brought the article up to FA status. I don't doubt they very reasonably want to protect the result from heading back to where it was. (It is, however, a train. This article will always come back around. Take 6 months off and you'll find random bits about touching up the paint, when a train was shut down for 30 minutes to clear a track and an attempt to isolate the pitch of the whistle.) Unfortunately, this might tend a bit toward a feeling of ownership.
I don't know if NickH2001 is the IP editor or not. At the moment, I'm not particularly concerned. Semi-protecting a problematic article will either push IPs away or result in registered accounts. If the registered accounts become problematic, we try to work with them, escalating toward blocks if needed. Recurring problems after that are a different issue. Treating NickH as a new editor requires little more than giving them a bit of coaching. If they are the IP editor, they'll might reject that and speed their way to a conclusion. If they are the IP and take some coaching or are a new editor altogether, it works out either way. This is where the article's talk page should come in.
Enthusiastic editors (common to kids' media/Disney/train/etc. articles) do not mix well with editors protecting articles. While their goals (hopefully!) are similar -- a "good" article -- their visions are often at odds. Too often, the enthusiastic editor wants to make large changes and the protecting editor winds up rejecting it all. The enthusiastic editor can feel rejected and the protecting editor can feel attacked. Discussing a large change in that environment is tough. Partializing can be a part of the solution. If the enthusiastic editor is trying to add lots of material and you are blocking all of it, take it to the article's talk page and try to break it down: discuss a piece of the larger addition and why you think it should/should not be included. Is it sourced to an independent reliable source? Is it on topic (i.e., is it possibly encyclopedic, but belong in a different article (about the amusement park, the corporation, small gauge railroads, etc.)?)? Does WP:WEIGHT apply? Should a portion of it be included? Do we need a better/more sources? If both editors discuss the issue, try to resolve their different points of view and use dispute resolution when they can't, the project moves ahead. If one or both editors don't work together in good faith, then we might have cause for someone to break out a mop.
IMO, Jackdude101 and NickH2001 need to break this down on the article's talk page. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Update: NickH2001 responded to the notification of this discussion on his talk page saying that he will refrain from making any more edits to the two articles beyond basic technical edits, such as duplicate links. As long as he sticks to his word, I am satisfied.

I should state for the record that I don't have a problem with him. I have a problem with the addition of unnecessary content regardless of who added it. As User:SummerPhDv2.0 mentioned, these types of articles tend to be jokes from a quality standpoint, and part of my motivation for bringing these articles up to FA status was to prove that there can be exceptions to that rule, and to inspire others to apply similar professional treatments to other similar articles (one example is the Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort) article). If there are any other content issues in the future, as suggested, I will bring them up on the related talk pages and encourage him to do the same. Jackdude101 talk cont 19:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I was pinged to weigh in here but it seems to be largely resolved. I was involved in the past because I reported another user who was abusively templating the editor's (supposed) former IP with vandalism warnings without actually reporting the user for remedial action, and I believe at the time I called that bitey. I can't really address the content matter. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Obvious sock of banned editor Daniel C. Boyer[edit]

(non-admin closure) Obvious sock blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2019 (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.

Banned editor Daniel C. Boyer is socking again. Boing said Zebedee blocked one a day or so ago. Today, his extremely obvious sock is disrupting Drawing, and needs to be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I've asked for Drawing to be protected as well, since Boyer has form for using multiple socks to try to get his stuff into articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Blocked by Boing. Closing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2019 (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.

Unblock request (for another user)[edit]

You're a legend Swarm thanks so much!, –Davey2010Talk 00:13, 7 February 2019 (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.

Hi, Sorry if this is in the wrong place,
Victoria's Angel was blocked due to their previous username (Bhadbhabie) being seen as impersonation of Danielle Bregoli,
They've since renamed however the blocking admin hasn't been on since 4pm UK time and I don't really think it's fair this editor further remains blocked until the blocking admin logs back on so was wondering if they could be unblocked now?,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Unblocked! Thanks for letting us know. ~Swarm~ {talk} 23:43, 6 February 2019 (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.

User Nakon possible wiki break[edit]

Nakon has edited in the past few weeks, no further action needed. SemiHypercube 00:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
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.

I am not certain if this is lack of steem but it seems admin Nakon may have gone on a wiki break. Their contributions show that they are occasional contributors but they have not contributed since end of January. They left us messages with CAPTAIN MEDUSA on our request for pending changes rights here Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Pending_changes_reviewer but due to their break, the requests have remain largely unattended to. Also user CAPTAIN MEDUSA left them a message on their talk here [19]] which led me to think it could be a little longer before they return. I was asking if anyone could help look at them while they are on break. Senserely Loved150 (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You are required to notify people I have done so for you [[20]] [[21]]. Also, I am not sure this is the correct venue for this report. TelosCricket (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
No, this is a perfectly legitimate thing to bring to our attention. @Loved150: Requests handled. ~Swarm~ {talk} 23:52, 6 February 2019 (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.

Persistent edit warring and disruptive editing from IP user[edit]

The involved IP range has been blocked for 72 hours. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:10, 7 February 2019 (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.

86.134.62.138 has been edit warring for several days with basically everyone at 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum; they were warned that they were about to violate WP:3RR ([22]), yet they keep reverting others. So far, there have been six reverts within or just outside a single 24-hour period ([23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]), with further reverts outside that period. The user was also warned on their talk page about their behaviour ([29]), but has kept removing those on the (false) grounds that these were "bullying" ([30] [31]), even after they were told that such a removal was not adviseable specially while engaged in an edit war ([32]). I think a block is due already. Impru20talk 15:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. 209.152.44.202 (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there were two obviously related IPs, 86.134.63.244 and 86.134.62.138, so I blocked the small range 86.134.62.0/23 for 72 hours. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 6 February 2019 (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.

Fred Howe (footballer, born 1912)[edit]

Handled. The revisions have been revision deleted per RD1 and the user blocked for 24 hours for repeated copyright violations. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:11, 7 February 2019 (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.

An SPA has added a cut/paste bio from copyrighted source. I have removed it twice and warned on user talk page but the editor has put it back again. Does not appear to be interested in responding/understanding policy. MB 15:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the copyvio text and cleaned the history. The SPA editor has been given a 24-hour block for ignoring the previous warning. CactusWriter (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2019 (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.

User:Harris Sharyar[edit]

spam deleted, spammer blocked. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2019 (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.

User page looks problematical to me. Masquerades as an article, WP:Advertising WP:Linkspam. 7&6=thirteen () 14:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

"It is observed that he created the best web-apps and this is how he captures the world."? Deleted per NOTWEBHOST, but could been seen ad spam/advertising as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2019 (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.

(edit conflict) er, they haven't been blocked as far as I can see. [33] IDK that one try at an autobio would deserve a block anyway though, maybe... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|😹|✝️|John 15:12|☮️|🍂|T/C 23:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Remove an editor's permissions[edit]

Swarm pretty much took the words out of my mouth, and it reflects the responses and opinions of other editors and administrators here (including my own). I'm closing this discussion; there's no administrator action required here and no basis to revoke anybody's user rights. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:28, 7 February 2019 (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.

This user has been behaving extremely poorly for one with privileges, and has expressed an intention to use rollback wrongfully. I must therefore propose that it be removed. Let me explain:

He recently replied to a message I left him [34] — Leaving aside the serious incivility ("Are you sick?"), battleground attitude ("Before brandishing your human rights..."), superior tone ("Learn the wikipedia [sic] rules"), belligerence ("What's your bloody problem") and namecalling ("smartass"), there is a serious problem with his approach.

He said: "Every minute a smartass pops up who thinks I can read his mind to undesrtand [sic] the purpose their edits. So my policy is just like this: no edit summary, no self-evident purpose - revert on the spot ... A great time saver."

That is totally unacceptable. No editor has a duty to explain their edits to him. He can't just have a blanket policy of reverting anything he claims not to understand (and his decisiont o target red-linked accounts seems like a WP:BITE issue too). There is no rule that users must use an edit summary so that is no basis for reverting their edits.

If he doesn't understand why an edit has been made, and it is not clearly wrongful (eg. vandalism or spam) then he should reach out to the editor and ask them. He can't just revert on hair trigger, because every editor is accountable for their own edits (including reverts) and if they restore inappropriate content then they are acting wrongly.

A good example from this week is where he used a rollback tool to restore inappropriate WP:WEASEL content into an article (and where he did not, incidentally, yourself provide an edit summary). Even if an editor of his experience genuinely didn't know about WP:WEASEL, clearly this was not an appropriate occasion to revert based on a "red-linked account" policy.

I am accordingly inviting the administrators to remove his advanced permissions (at least rollback) as he is clearly likely to misuse them. Amisom (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It's true that there is no policy requirement that you leave an edit summary, but long-standing community best practice is It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted incorrectly, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was. Your complaint that his revert is misplaced, that he should check with an editor before reverting, or that it's somehow incumbent on others to magically intuit the intent and purpose of your edits isn't going to get much traction here. In fact, you're more likely to see a lot of basic agreement with his position and his language, especially since his tone was in direct response to your rather snarky, combative language [35] which you dropped after also dropping a COI template on his page [36]. I'd strongly suggest you drop this complaint, because it's likely to backfire on you, and you're already starting to dance into boomerang territory. Grandpallama (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
He stated he has a personal po,icy of using rollback tools to revert all edits from new accounts on sight if he personally doesn’t understand them (and without seeking to understand them). That’s not OK Amisom (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
That's not what he said. What he said was (italicized emphasis mine) So my policy is just like this: no edit summary, no self-evident purpose - revert on the spot, which is precisely in line with the best practice I quoted. Again, as I said, it's the onus of the editor to provide a reason for edits, not for someone else to seek out a reason, so the attempt to shift accountability for your own edits to someone else is unacceptable. Moreover, a second editor also complained about your misuse of edit summaries around the exact same edit. So I'll say again--you should drop this, and learn from it that you should be including better edit summaries when you remove content. Grandpallama (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Both Amisom and Staszek Lem are acting in uncivilly, but this thread is the wrong way to resolve it. For starters, I can't blame Staszek Lem for responding the way they did; "Maybe next time focus more ont he collaboration and less ont he moral high ground". However, their method of reverting stuff is not the best: Readding NPOV vios because the edit summary is bad is not an excuse. This is as bad as the IPs edit as Staszek didn't leave any rationale either. How are people supposed to know that a person needs an article before they're listed on those sorts of pages? Sure, it might be someone adding their friend, but let's WP:AGF. "Scribe" is a real word, and while it's not correct technically, consider using the AGF Twinkle rollback.
Walk away with this: Amisom, try to not interact with Staszek Lem. Staszek Lem, leave correct edit summaries yourself if you dislike it when other people don't (you only use them 44.3% of the time, not including blank rollback statements). Also, try exercising some good faith. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
And please try to keep civil when engaging other editors, Staszek Lem; the complaint about your behaviour on that talk page was well-justified.Lurking shadow (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Eh...it was an entirely understandable response because it was provoked by equally bad, if not worse, behavior from the filer. Grandpallama (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Was anyone planning to formally notify Staszek Lem that they are being discussed here? I don't see that any {{ANI-notice}} was placed on their Talk page. This was the responsibility of the filer. General Ization Talk 14:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I do now see that Amisom mentioned ANI in the closing of their comments on the editor's Talk page. General Ization Talk 15:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
True Amison did mention that they have plans to open a thread at ANI. Nevertheless I posted the ANi notice there, to make it clear that this thread has already been posted, and he should check and respond. --DBigXray 19:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
This customer has a very specific understanding of wikipedia guidelines. I have already accepted his edits, done with wrong edit summary " NPOV":
  • 11:20, 5 February 2019‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (9,413 bytes) +4‎ . . (OK, but next time write correct edit summary right away)
And the second edit summary ("As per policy please don’t re add without a source") actually shows that he does know correct policy for this revert. Instead, they decided to apply NPOV, WEASEL, etc. without citing what was exactly npov and weasel. Without specific explanation there can be no discussion, and the only edit summary in such cases is "no it is not NPOV, not WEASEL", and no I cannot prove that something is NOT, if I even do not know what IS, so the onus of proof is on the person who is making positive statements.
But this person found it necessary to come onto me with a trainload of trucks, so my WP:AGF went in smoke right away. Well, in the future when seeing this user name, I will just ignore their antics and go straight to article talk page, where other editors may help do deal with them. Obviously, one-to-one bickering leads to nothing. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Amisom: The diff you provided is not a misuse of rollback. They used Twinkle, which is not a special privilege. We do not revoke permissions for misconduct when the permissions are not involved. In any case, you're so focused on the tone of SL's message to you, you've overlooked the content, which appears to be spot-on. SL reverted without an edit summary, but you made an initial edit without an edit summary ("nah" is not a real explanation for an edit, and you know it). Communication is required. Don't complain about getting reverted when you're failing the basic requirement of communication. ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:56, 6 February 2019 (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.

Deletion needed[edit]

 Done. Sorry, I had to... Okay, let's move on. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:30, 7 February 2019 (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.

Ok enough Abelmoschus Esculentus (talkcontribs) 12:01, 6 February 2019 (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.

Resolved

Would someone please delete Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cinadon36 a newly created attack page. I can't see a suitable entry at WP:CSD but it is clear the creator (Jazz1972 (talk · contribs)) is in conflict with the target who is an editor in good standing. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Green tickY needs more check marks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 deleted I think another is warranted --DannyS712 (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Good close Levivich 17:21, 6 February 2019 (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.

Green tickY Endorse heavy-handed humor-policing.[37] ~Swarm~ {talk} 22:43, 6 February 2019 (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.

Probable undisclosed paid editing[edit]

The IP user has been blocked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:33, 7 February 2019 (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.

Dutch IP 195.35.150.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to be a single-purpose account here to promote the Dutch company Elemental Water Makers. I removed some spammy material here and warned them about conflict of interest, but they just replaced it in a stealth edit here. Almost certainly a paid editor, but has refused to disclose. --IamNotU (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

A highly promotional article Elemental Water Makers was also created and speedy deleted today. Deli nk (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Right, and an account, User:Animus5393, is apparently also involved, whether or not that's a different person. The IP hasn't exactly refused to disclose; they merely haven't disclosed. You put an {{uw-coi}} template on their page a month ago, IamNotU, very properly, but it's a rather long and complex template. They wouldn't be alone in not reading a whole complicated template like that with full attention, or in missing/choosing to miss the sentence about disclosing a COI. Deli nk has now posted a short sharp note to them which there would be no excuse for not reading or not understanding; but that was only a few hours ago, so we should probably give them a bit more time. If they continue promotional editing without disclosing now, after Deli nk's post, they should be blocked, and the same goes for the account. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 5 February 2019 (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.

DontBlameMe[edit]

(non-admin closure) DontBlameMe blocked for hoaxing. There is peace in our time.Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:13, 5 February 2019 (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.

DontBlameMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The other day I came across a blatantly fake sales certification on a Taylor Swift article, which turned out had been added by DontBlameMe around six months ago. Quickly looking at the user's contributions, it turned out he'd been adding a humongous amount of made-up certifications to boost his favorite singer's receipts: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Not only were the data false, but they were also supported by sources (of course, with no mention of them) to make them look real. The user, who has over 2,600 contribution across the past fourteen months, seems to lack understanding of what Wikipedia is, rather considering it a fansite for Swift, judging by this vandalic edit from two weeks ago. Because of this chronic problematic behavior, I suggest DontBlameMe is completely incompatible with the project. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 12:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Wow. That's egregious. Reviewing the edits, the purported sources very often have absolutely nothing to do with the text they are supposed to support. I have blocked for hoaxing. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 4 February 2019 (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.

2019 Supercars Championship[edit]

Page protected by Oshwah. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talkcontribs) 04:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
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.

Article has recently been reopened after a week long protection resulting from previous edit warring. Now that is has been reopened, IPs from the same range have resumed edit warring with no attempt to discuss. [43][44] Crick12 (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I have tried a compromise wording which closely mirrors the source and also started discussion on the article talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The range of the IP network is 1.128.0.0/11 - That's much too wide of a range to consider administrative action or blocking (even if we could). I've protected the page for two weeks and for repeated disruptive editing. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:08, 7 February 2019 (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.

Disruptive editing on Module:Adjacent stations[edit]

Timeline of the Incident[edit]

Here is a quick timeline of this event

Above is a rough summary of this incident, please comment whether or not you support or oppose this rename under and please by civil and do not attack each other. If you think this action is disruptive and want further action, please comment under this section. -- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) 22:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Both you and Cards84664 want it to be deleted right now, so what is the point of commenting here? Ythlev (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ythlev:I cannot do anything right now about this. Since I involved in this discussion, I cannot close the discussion by myself. I do agree that it is pointless to have further discussion here and this issue can be go back to the Module's talk page for further discussion at this point.-- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) 06:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Continuing Discussion[edit]

Ythlev Has been very disruptive with their edits on Module:Adjacent stations. They assumed that they did not need consensus to replace a module that was used on 37,000+ pages. The editor shows WP:OWN editing habits, claiming that any challenges to their editing requires being "convinced". The editor created Module:Rail, then moved Module talk:Adjacent stations to Module talk:Rail with zero discussion beforehand. They later explained that the move was made because another editor moved Module:Adjacent stations/doc to Module:Rail/doc. This was done by Anthony Appleyard because of a request by Ythlev at WP:RMTR. What makes this situation bizarre however, is that Ythlev (created on December 20th) is a publicly declared sockpuppet of Szqecs and Szqecs1. This user did not discuss changing their username at all.

First of all, which point in WP:DISRUPTSIGNS did I satisfy? Ythlev (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I think number 6 very slightly via what the OP of this discussion section said WP:OWN. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Pinging second opinions: Mackensen, Redrose64, Johnuniq. Cards84664 (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I see no discussion on the module's talk page, or attempts to converse with the user in any way. And it looks like they edited the page once, were reverted. Did it again and self reverted shortly after, all on the 22nd Jan and haven't touched it since. Am I missing something? Canterbury Tail talk 19:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
here and here? Cards84664 (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Did you participate the discussions? Ythlev (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ythlev:Can you please provide a link to the page and/or talk page where a discussion over this change explicitly took place. If you are referring to those two links that User:Cards84664 stated, as an active discussion then there is a problem. Those two pages do not have any active discussions at all; a page with an active discussion is considered to have your intended change stated, plus at least two opinions of two different users(WHO ARE NOT ALTS) agreeing or disagreeing with the intended change that you stated. So please provide the links to the page and/or talk page that you are stating to have a "discussions" about this intended change of yours. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: Plus two opinions of two different users? Then there is not such a discussion. Where is it written that edits should have discussions meeting that requirement? If it were a policy, then the module should never have been created. It was a two-man project and barely anyone talked about it even after it going live. Ythlev (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please explain (for those of us who are not up with the latest technology) whether this change has any visible effect on the way articles are presented to readers? If not then it simply doesn't matter - let's just toss a coin to decide which way it should be. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
In theory, no, but it's unclear to everyone who isn't Ythlev what the actual plan is--to rename the module, to break up its functionality, or what. It's frustrating. For a module with this many invocations I think there's a reasonable expectation that major changes will be discussed beforehand or at least explained in some detail. Mackensen (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Which I already did: Module talk:Rail#January 2019 changes. Ythlev (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
After everyone shouted, and you're continuing to avoid answering the questions that have been put to you. This is incredibly disruptive. Mackensen (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
That is why I am leaning towards #6 in the WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, that User:Ythlev provided. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
And again, Ythlev has only been "Ythlev" since December 20th, they started a new account for no given reason that I can find. Cards84664 (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Cards84664:The fact that they created another account is troublesome enough. If the user in question is found to be using this account for disruptive editing, then the user is actually violating the [[45]] and as well is doing the "Good hand" and "bad hand" violation that is listed in that section of the linked page. However only a check user would be able to verify that, plus even before that we have to make sure that what the user is doing on the account questioned is actually disruptive editing or another form of rule braking. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
They explicitly mentioned the old "alt" accounts on their user page, if you didn't already see that. Cards84664 (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
There are exceptions to the no alt rule, but it requires doing a process or something like that. It is on the same page linked in my reply to you previously. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I created this account for the legitimate use clean start under a new name. For those accusing me of good hand bad hand, which account is the bad hand? And what does something like that mean? If you are not familiar with the rules, how can you accuse others of breaking them? Ythlev (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I never explicitly stated that you are 100% doing bad hand with your "Ythlev" account, all I did say was that if your actions that you did on this account if considered by the community at a future time (everyone is catching zzzzZZZzzzZZ right now mostly currently in my opinion), consider your edits disruptive and rule breaking, then your "Ythlev" account would be considered "bad hand". Also I would like to let you know that I clearly understood the "good-hand" and "bad-hand" thing, (a sock puppet has a account for doing good things... and a account for doing bad things). I am sorry that I did not look at any of your edit history on the other two accounts of yours to see if there were any active edits. I really am sorry, if I had looked maybe I would not have stated anything about sockpuppetry. Sorry. :( Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

About the ownership accusation, have I stopped anyone from editing or reverting my edits? Ythlev (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like the type of proposal that should have been discussed at the Village pump and a consensus determined there. I think this needs to stop or be undone until it has been discussed at the village pump.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
When I created this module I certainly didn't go to no village pump. Again, where is this requirement written? Ythlev (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Requesting comments from users on whether the actions and behavior of Ythlev is considered disruptive/rule breaking[edit]

It seems that at this point that what the actions of "Ythlev" the community would consider to be called could have many different outcomes ranging from nothing to a possible warning(s) sockpuppetry sanctions. The latter being due to the fact that the user stated on their account that the account in question is an alt account with no reason stated. Also from the creation of this alt account of theirs to the time of the reporting of the incident has only been doing edits to the page that is being talked about in the main section of this discussion, thus the user could be doing a "Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts. If the community ends up considering the actions of the Ythlev account being disruptive and rule breaking I suggest a warning(s) on all accounts that the user owns. sockpuppetry investigation. Otherwise if the community decides that this is not rule breaking or disruptive then just leave it alone. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

About the alt account, I didn't know you had to state a reason, and if I knew you could just change username, I would have. I am not avoiding scrutiny, and I thought declaring the alts was obvious enough but apparently people go the extra mile for hall monitoring. Ythlev (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Ythlev:See my response to one of your responses above. Sorry for the mishap. Sorry. :( However a warning sanction is possible still if actions are considered disruptive. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Ythlev: I don't think there has to be a reason or whatever for a name change either. My understanding is basically it's fine if you weren't "in trouble" (under restrictions/block or whatever) when you switched accs. I don't see why that would be a problem. Especially if you haven't concurrently been editing with both accounts and since you disclosed them right up, it sounds like you did everything by the book, and talk of sanctions for that seems kind of unreasonable to me... just my thoughts :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|😹|✝️|John 15:12|☮️|🍂|T/C 08:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. It's disruptive. It needs to stop.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Making any changes to to anything which affects 37k pages without discussion is often reckless. When someone disagrees with your change then this proves it almost definitely was reckless. This applies even if there is eventual consensus for your change. BRD doesn't work very well when you're dealing with 37k pages. And you should always be able to justify any significant changes you make i.e. explain why they make wikipedia better. If you can't or have no actual plan then this is generally disruptive. So a double whammy here really.

    I would mention though that clearly and properly disclosed alternative accounts are normally okay. I mean I'm not saying they can never be a problem, but editors don't really need an important reason, nor do they have to ask anyone before making one. If an editor just wanted a rename but didn't know it was possible it's even clearer it's fine. Editors limited to one account due to some sanction are an obvious exception.

    BTW, this isn't a WP:CLEANSTART as normally meant here on wikipedia. A cleanstart is when you intentionally don't link the two accounts publicly. (You may choose to do so privately to arbcom or similar.) You also generally shouldn't be editing the same or similar articles, and especially not straight after you retired your old account. (Personally I also feel that anyone trying to do a clean start should also wait at least 6 months from retiring before editing again, but this isn't a real requirement.)

    This doesn't mean the new account was wrong, as I said it seems fine and in fact it's better than a clean start. While creating a new account even properly disclosed is always likely to lead to heightened scrutiny especially if you get into problems, a clean start is even worse due to the lack of disclosure. My point is simply that referring to it as a clean start may cause confusion.

    Nil Einne (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  • This really just needs to go back to the talk page, and everyone needs to stop discussion about how the edits pissed them off. Ythlev would probably do good to stop trying to claim the high road as well, as there seems to be animosity by all parties that is preventing a real discussion, and no one is as clean as the driven snow here. Go back and start over. This really isn't an ANI issue quite yet. Dennis Brown - 09:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I do not think people complaining about simple edits on the original module. People are moving the discussion here because User:Ythlev decides to redirect the module and its talk page to their new module without gaining consensus, and their editing actually break all the page. I was extremly confusion at the first glance since the Infobox station templates also been indicated to be part of the Moudle:Rail, but no code in the template shows that. Since I am currently transitation all the rail station infobox template to the Infobox station on the Chinese Wikipedia, the mentioning on the doc really cause confusion. I do think ANI is the right place to discuss this issue since Module:Adjacent stations is on more than 37,000 page and redirect without consensus is violating the guideline. -- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) 23:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Ythlev did the same with Template:Sidebar Adjacent stations. They added documentation linking it to Module:Rail, then they moved the template to Template:Sidebar Rail. This has since been reverted, but afterwards Ythlev created it again here. Their template currently lists all of the components of Module:Adjacent stations as "Currently uses old version". This leads me to believe that Ythlev is planning on ignoring consensus as soon as the arguments die down. Cards84664 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
        • @Dennis Brown:, this is the reason why these users come to ANI for complaining about this incident. It is not just simple edit, but are actions like moving the whole module, its talk page and its docs to Module:Rail without consensus, rewrote the whole module without consensus and break everything, and saying everything on Template:Sidebar Adjacent stations is part of Module:Rail without consensus. Since Adjacent stations is part of Infobox stations, the template and module are linked to more than 37k pages, and without any discussion and consensus before moving pages is complete unacceptable. User:Ythlev says that they mentioned that the template should be redesigned. However, non of words in that section indicated that there will be a redesign to take over the current template. User:Ythlev also says that they get consensus in this section response, but in reality that they only give less than twelve hours before submitting doc move and the frequent reverts of User:Ythlev have prove that there is no Wikipedia:Silence_and_consensus been established. User:Ythlev says that they is "open to being convinced", which is not what Wikipedia:Consensus works. User:Ythlev should instead address others concerns (For example, what will the move affect the look, is it support or features), which they failed to do. Being bold should be cautious when dealing with high use templates based on guideline. By moving pages without consensus and break thousands of page is a template vandalism. User:Ythlev is doing disruptive editing, due to 5:the failure of not engage in consensus building and 6:rejects or ignores community input.I urge the administrators to take appropriate action about this incident. -- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) 23:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Dennis Brown: I don't know that this issue is here prematurely; Ythlev isn't listening to people's feedback and has tried to fork the module again, despite an obvious lack of consensus. Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mackensen:If what you are saying is true, and if you can show a diff, link to a page log, or a link to a page that proves that Ythlev is still doing this without consensus, then this does count as disruptive behavior. Sanctions to User:Ythlev then are possible because the user is obviously not listening to the discussion that is taking place here, and is avoiding to do any consensus. So can you please provide the links or the proof. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold:@Dennis Brown: Are you seriously still considering sanctioning me? As far as consensus goes, there has never been opposition to re-structuring the code of Module:Adjacent stations. And a user who 'strongly opposed' my code now proposes to use it before I am even out of this mess. The 'fork the module again' mentioned above refers to editing Module:Rail, which was not used by any live templates. It is now not even used by sandbox templates and the code has been deleted. Basically Cards84664 and Mackensen won't even let me test anything related to the module, which if I'm not mistaken, is against Wikipedia policy. I haven't touched Module:Rail since. Must this thread continue when it is obvious that this report is a malicious attack out of spite and paranoia? Ythlev (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, after quick examine the original code in Module:Rail that User:Ythlev propose for change, I strongly oppose the move to the new code. The new code do not have enough comments for others to understand, the definition of each word is everywhere rather than concentrate on the top like the current version. This creates difficult for people like me who love to translate module and templates to other wikipedia. Also, the p.convert function in the new code is exactly the same as the current version. I am currently concerning that the new version do not cover all the exception exist in the old version due to the lack explanation from the other. @Ythlev:, I do suggest you to add enough comments in your code, do the same thing as the current version by creating a Internationalization table at the top for people to do easy translation and explain what you have changed or redo in detail (like I use AA than BB in the XX function of the current version. BB is CC, which is faster or better than the current version) before suggestion for edit. Also, due to the exact same function name in most of the function in both version, I would suggest you to just submit a edit request on the current version rather than the new one in order to preserve the edit history. -- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) 01:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@VulpesVulpes825: Module:Rail has been redirected to Module:Adjacent stations, and the Module:Rail redirect has been nominated for deletion at WP:RFD. Cards84664 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Dennis Brown:, I do think User:Ythlev's version is a good idea despite a lack of discussion before editing after further re-examine the code with test cases provided. I have currently start a new discussion in the Module's page and I think the discussion here is no longer necessary since the discussion before my comments is keeping criticizing about the change of username rather than actually talking about whether or not the change is necessary. If possible, please close the discussion so people can focus on what is important -- improve the Module and Template. I also do think it is necessary of renaming the module name to Rail since the module have templates like line color, which does not associated with Adjacent Stations. -- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) 06:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    • If you think it should be renamed, why did you comment that it should be speedily deleted? Ythlev (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    • You crossed it out. Never mind. Can you not make comments in bold before looking into things first? You are not any less confusing than me. Ythlev (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • As I stated on my talk page: Have an RFC. Admin can't block an editor for editing against consensus if you can't demonstrate there IS a consensus. Via WP:BRD, revert back to stable, and instantly start the RFC. If he is smart, he will leave it at the stable version while the RFC is going on. Then everyone live with the results of the RFC. Dennis Brown - 15:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Constant unsourced additions from Trin5ty even after being warned several times.[edit]

User indeffed INeedSupport :3 20:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)(non-admin closure)
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.

User in question: Trin5ty

This user has constantly made unsourced additions and change images of tropical cyclone for quite a long time now. Those edits are reverted by other users, however after a couple of days the user made the same edits. The user has done that for around half a year. I think the user wants to keep its prefer image, which is an infraction of WP:ILIKEIT. Examples of unsourced changes includes [46], and [47], however there are a lot more examples that I haven't listed here. Examples of image changes includes [48], [49], [50], and [51], however the user made a lot more similar edits. These examples shows that the user is not giving up trying to keep its prefer images. In the user's talk page, the user has received multiple warnings from making those edits, however the user persists on doing it anyways. Trin5ty has already been blocked once for persistently making unsourced edit. Due to all of these evidences, I think the user is WP:NOTHERE. INeedSupport :3 16:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indef; been here 2 years, with a mile-long talk page with a host of problems, and they've made zero user talk page edits. Hard to understand how they got away with this for so long. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2019 (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.

I.P User:137.59.223.23[edit]

IP address blocked. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talkcontribs) 04:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
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.

I.P user has been changing the spelling of names in Bollywood movie related articles on/off since the 19th January this year. I've lost count of the reverts needed. Sample diffs: diff diff diff diff

They've been warned three times, which includes a final warning, yet they haven't taken the advice onboard. There have been gaps up to 12 days in the I.P's contribs, so a standard 24hr block won't be much use. I'm hoping for a block longer than 288 hours to be applied. Thanks, Cesdeva (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The diffs that you give above are all for one name, and it seems that the spelling "Shahrukh Khan"[52] is used at least as often as "Shah Rukh Khan"[53]. Wouldn't it be better to talk about this with that editor rather than throw warnings around and bring this content dispute here? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
There have been other name changes, but yes the majority are for Shah Rukh Khan. The i.p editor has never engaged in discussion on his talk page, despite a world of opportunity and a good length of time. No warnings were 'thrown', they have been progressive and spaced. The title of the article is Shah Rukh Khan, so until new consensus is sort on the WP:COMMONNAME, the i.p is being distruptive (and also linking to redirects). Pinging User:Bollyjeff who may have an opinion too. Cesdeva (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
An editor going against the standing consensus and failing to discuss with other editors is something that ends up here all the time. Turning direct links into redirect links is not constructive editing. It's easy to dismiss this when you aren't having to perform multiple reverts every time this editor goes on a spree.
When an editor completely fails to enter discussion, applying a temporary block to make the editor realise that their actions are WP:NOTHERE is a reasonable action. Maybe then this i.p will engage in discussion. Cesdeva (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, the subject prefers his name in the three word form, which is actually discussed and cited in the article. Changing it for no good reason is not constructive editing. Bollyjeff | talk 02:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I've blocked the user for 24 hours for disruptive editing. I'm hoping that this will be what's needed in order to get this user to stop, read the warnings that are left on their talk page, and discuss things properly if they disagree. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:09, 7 February 2019 (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.

RTG: Annoying image on talk page[edit]

Okay, that's enough, this thread has jumped the shark; we've branched off into things that have nothing to do with floating non-scrolling images, including, well, sharks. There's no clear consensus that the image violates the guideline to the point that removal is required. For editors who find it annoying, Paradoctor's suggestion (add [style*="position:fixed"] {position:relative!important}) to your common.js) is good advice. Administrator intervention is not required here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:35, 7 February 2019 (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.

RTG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is being discussed elsewhere, but I would like to address one small issue without repeating what has been said elsewhere.

As I explained at User talk:RTG#Annoying talk page image he has an image that is unscrollable and covers part of the text. This is especially annoying when I edit with a palmtop that has a small screen and it takes up most of the page, but I find it to be distracting and annoying on any device.

I asked him to make it an ordinary image, with predictable results. Can anything be done about this? It's a small thing, so "suck it up and live with the annoyance" is a perfectly acceptable answer. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Suck it up and live with the annoyance, I'd say. Guy, this really seems like poking them with a stick, particularly since you first brought this to his attention while he was already worked up about a different dispute you were involved in. In addition, I've seen many people with non-scrolling images that cover part of the text of their talk page, so let's not come down hard on someone who is already feeling attacked when we aren't enforcing it with any uniformity. For an extra-special level of introspection, how would you feel if I decided this was definitely a waste of time, and archived it right now? Because I think that's how he was feeling at the time you brought this up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
If you have Adblocker, or equivalent, then just block it if it's bothering you. Canterbury Tail talk 20:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree. Guy, just for context, I've never seen RTG on the project before today, and yet despite this I was fully prepared to go straight to the extreme position of proposing a three month boomerang block for them earlier, following their fourth consecutive edit representing an effort to edit war with an admin to reverse the a close/post close comment action said close, during that meltdown that transpired first on VPP and then here at ANI above. That is to say, before Davey did them the favour (that they will probably never appreciate) of removing their last comment, thus saving then from facing that discussion (which I think would have been one of the most quickly endorsed sanctions in the history of ANI, they were so far out of line. So you can hopefully see from the above that I'm quite willing to view this user as disruptive in the extreme. But even with that context underpinning things, I still 100% endorse what Floque's perspective on this: this is not the proper context and, however good-faith your motivation, this is about as productive in this moment in time as kicking a hornet's nest right after it's fallen in a community garden. I don't doubt there's a lot in terms of problematic behaviour that is going to have to be addressed here, but perhaps we could do it in a way that's a bit less painful for all involved? Snow let's rap 20:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
You can add [style*="position:fixed"] {position:relative!important} to your common.css, that should do the trick. Paradoctor (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks! and here I was all ready to thanks everyone for the advice, suck it up, and live with the annoyance (smile). Now if only there was some CSS that would hide any post that hijacks an unrelated discussion in order to root for team red[54] or team blue[55]... --Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • FYI, WP:SMI is the relevant guide. Anything that artificially restricts or obscures text/neccessary parts of the display can be fixed by any editor - even on another's user/talkpage. While on a normal PC/screen, this is not an issue due to display size, floating pictures like the one on their talkpage that obscure text certainly are covered by this where it has a noticable impact. Given the switch to more mobile/tablet etc devices, this is a bigger issue (in general) on them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The above close says "I don't believe there's any policy that forbids it" but WP:SMI is quite clear: "CSS and other formatting codes that disrupt the MediaWiki interface, for example by preventing important links or controls from being easily seen or used, making text on the page hard to read or unreadable, may be removed or remedied by any user." User:Davey2010, please self-revert your close so that this can be discussed.

Regarding "letting the user be" is that the message that we want to send? That for ordinary editors following WP:SMI is required, but if you call several other editors serial killers, psychopaths, mass murderers, a "rouge[sic] cabal", extremely bitter perpetrators and sharks (who for some unknown reason are attracted to sparks instead of blood), that makes you exempt from the rules that apply to everyone else? And that calling people all of those names means that we cannot even discuss the violation of WP:SMI? Hey I want to be above those annoying rules too. Who do I need to insult? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

What I did was compare myself to a mass murder with a distinction to a serial killer. Yes, cabalism, and/or grouping up to exert force on extremely short notice, is pretty much predatory. Guy, you posted up one of these psycho examinations of Donald Trump on Jimbo Wales talk page. I replied at length, without very much style, but with a real attempt at depth to closet doing that as a reversely effective measure, which has caused the problem it proposes to solve by proposing to solve it in the same way, when it was only a proposal of a problem at the time (I blame them for getting him the vote by doing that in the first place actually). And It's been a couple of years since I posted in a major forum on WP, so I ranted on a bit about politics and the media, to no particular response, then went off to do something else. Something else turned out to be suggesting not allowing the refdesk to be voted out like that again for the forseeable future. I said stuff like, if the refdesk is dying let it die. So some editor came along shortly after I posted and templated it closed. I reverted this. Mr Macon appointed himself at this point as the leader of a new cabal and has simply not realised yet that he has advertised it to the whole site by following me around. Who said, my talk page got 1,500 hits in one day over it. I haven't been so "angry"(angry?) in years. Who was it that said, ~ R.T.G 12:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: Electroreception. It's what they see, and if you didn't know that I assure you you will find many interesting things about shark physiology, and if you do, you can move on to pterodactyls. Sharks are the most efficient living machine on the planet, but alas, not much more than a machine to be had there. It was an accusation. I'm done. ~ R.T.G 12:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Sharks are way out there in terms of senses and physiology. The article says may, but as I recall the technology has already been put to plastic and used in surgical rooms. ~ R.T.G 13:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Done - I was only made aware of SMI after OfD made their comment but I didn't want to reopen this based on how much of a timesink this had become, That being said If I'm asked to reopen a thread I will do so but I'm not exactly thrilled about it, It is what it is I guess. –Davey2010Talk 13:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • (Dlohcierekim & The Rambling Man - Just a note I though Guy was an admin hence why i opened this, Had I known they wasn't I wouldn't of reopened so sorry about that. –Davey2010Talk 13:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC))
Probably the user has more important things to deal with right now. So let the user be. And I think Guy as the wrong person to address this matter and did so at the wrong time. Not sure why this was reopened, but there it is. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! According to a literal reading of SMI, I could have just edited his page to remove the floating image rather than discussing it here, but that would amount to throwing rocks at a hornet's nest.
BTW, he is still editing with a battlefield mentality.[56] I would advise giving him more time to see if he calms down and stops, but the future does not look promising. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
You are canvassing a war on me again. I've responded to all the accusations, and that's what this whole thing is about. I didn't seek out nobody about this fighting and stuff, except to request an admin for help here at ANI way after it really was an incident. ~ R.T.G 18:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


Until two days ago, this user talk page was averaging four hits per day. It's received around 1500 hits over the last two days, thus increasing the annoyed audience by a factor of 375. Perhaps this thread should have remained closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the image should be removed, per WP:SMI, but I'm not going to do it myself as at this point I think it would constitute wheel-warring. On my mobile device the floating image obstructs a significant amount of text (see File:RTG user talk screenshot 20190206.png) and makes the page difficult to use. I respect Floq's drive to swat the hornets away from RTG's talk page but we shouldn't be making exceptions to usability guidelines just because a user has a persecution complex. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the image should be removed as well, but I think that's of lesser import right now. Maybe the user ill feel more amenable once the Gestalt has cooled. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Look, before this I had no real call to review it. Your implication that people cannot proceed without my calming down is sort of made in my absence here. It's not the case. This is about my looking for a discussion and finding a fight, and it is being portrayed as my looking for a fight and finding a discussion, but this insistence hasn't been accepted yet. (I've answered them all, even this. Is there anything wrong with this response pls before I find another J'Accuse?) ~ R.T.G 18:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Gah. I hate all floating images. Regrettably, he ain't the only one. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@RTG:What I was trying to say was maybe if people stopped pissing you off you wouldn't be pissed off. Sorry if I pissed you off further. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim:Honestly, that is all I've got to go on here. I'm just putting myself out in case accusation turns to my not being interested in or capable of resolve, as that's what the intention of the previous accusations was about. No sweat o/ ~ R.T.G 19:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Floquenbeam got it right back near the top--Suck it up and live with the annoyance, I'd say. Guy, this really seems like poking them with a stick, particularly since you first brought this to his attention while he was already worked up about a different dispute you were involved in. In addition, I've seen many people with non-scrolling images that cover part of the text of their talk page, so let's not come down hard on someone who is already feeling attacked when we aren't enforcing it with any uniformity. For an extra-special level of introspection, how would you feel if I decided this was definitely a waste of time, and archived it right now? Because I think that's how he was feeling at the time you brought this up. Do we really need action on this at this moment? Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:SMI does not say this image needs to be removed. It is mildly annoying, yes. It obstructs some text, yes. But it isn't pretending to be a new messages bar or obstructing the edit button (that kind of things is what we have SMI for). Being annoying is allowed. Just ignore it. —Kusma (t·c) 14:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Nobody needs to ping me to this thread anymore; I stand by everything I said above, and do not wish to spend any more time arguing. If there's consensus here to remove it, then remove it. If there isn't, then don't. I vote "don't". --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I was not informed this discussion was reopened just as I was not informed when the discussion and request closures which sparked this problem were done. ~ R.T.G 18:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • So just delete it then. That seems to be the standard thing for me now. Why ask? Why debate it at all? ~ R.T.G 18:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Just so my intentions are clear, I still consider "suck it up and live with the annoyance" to be a perfectly acceptable answer. "you aren't even allowed to discuss this, even though there is a guideline that seems to prohibit it", not so much. I am fine with what appears to me to be a "no consensus for removal" result while at the same time being disappointed with the "abuse other editors. That way you will be exempt at least some of our policies and guidelines" attitude I am seeing. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
The statement about exemption can have no other target than me, and therefore accuses me directly of abuse, followed by an accusation of following a philosophy of "abuse other editors". ~ R.T.G 16:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • My solution was to delete the thing in Preview, but of course not Save. That would allow reading without the obstruction. And I'm sure the monkey enjoys the brief respite. Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2019 (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.

IP has been adding uncited content for 2 years; blocked 3 and 6 months for it but is still doing it[edit]

Reclosing – Goldenshimmer explained the situation. Favonian (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2019 (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.

174.105.177.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Has been doing little else than adding uncited content for the two years he's been on Wikipedia. Blocked 3 months, and then 6 months. Has a talkpage with warnings about it from at least four different people, including two recent ones from me, but he's still at it again despite reversions and warnings. I don't know what his trip is but he needs to be stopped -- needs another long-term block. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It's block evasion by 174.105.188.178. I blocked for a year. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for figuring that out, NinjaRobotPirate. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
How does extending the active block on the original IP help when the person behind it is already using a different IP? Seems like a punitive rather than preventive block to me and you are probably punishing someone other than the intended target. 2600:1003:B848:6031:4573:D57F:511B:2E44 (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
They blocked the current IP for a year; the original IP was already blocked 2yr. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|😹|✝️|John 15:12|☮️|🍂|T/C 10:17, 8 February 2019 (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.

Wikihounding and IP hopping from anonymous user[edit]

An anymous user (67.1.112.110) is engaged in wikihounding. He appeared suddenly on February 2 and 100% of this editors' contributions involved following and reverting my recent edits. I have had no prior interaction with this editor that I'm aware of that would have triggered this behaviour, nor have I had disputes with any editor. The edit summaries gave a variety of largely misleading reasons for the reverts, as seen below. Note that IP address is in Tucson, AZ.

67.1.112.110

  • [57] - "adds nothing"
  • [58] - "self promotion"
  • [59] - "claims must be referenced" despite proper source/citation
  • [60]
  • [61] - properly sourced edit reverted as "biased inuendo"
  • [62] - bogus claims not mentioned in citations restored as "NOT bogus" despite absolutely no verification by cited sources. This seems to be the edit that triggered the anonymous editor's behaviour, as far as I can tell.

User was advised to disengage the confrontational behaviour: [63]

On Feb 4, what appears to be bthe same anonymous user reapperaed under IP address 67.1.216.242. This editor also appeared out of nowhere and initially targeted only my edits:

  • [64] - standard CE mischaracterized as "vandalism"
  • [65] - good faith edit mischaracterized as "disruptive nonsense"
  • [66] - properly sourced edit reverted as "vandalism and moral attacks upon subject"

Note that this address is also in Tucson, AZ. I have no doubt both IP's are the same editor.

Looks like pretty clear wikihounding. User has made no attempt at discussion or dispute resolution. Note that at least one article was targeted by both IP's. I'd like an admin to intervene, as a warning was previously issued and not heeded. The fact that this user is also IP hopping also indicates deception and lack of good faith. SolarFlash (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Blocked the most recent IP, though they've been active dynamically on IPs on a very large range. If they think this is "valid and useful info" they're clearly trolling, and if that doesn't establish their motive then this certainly does. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
There may be connections to this account and this IP as well as this one. Probably more will turn up. SolarFlash (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
SolarFlash, I did some investigating and filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Laibwart on your behalf. Feel free to add any comments you may have there as well. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 23:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
MattLongCT, much appreciated. I'll take a look at the SPI when I get a minute. SolarFlash (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
SF - Also keep a list of the IP addresses in your sandbox. You can use this to build a rangeblock request, if needed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

These are the confirmed IP addresses associated with this user that I've been able to compile so far. The editing patterns are identical and all have been utilized for unconstructive edits and little else. Note that repeated attempts (over a period of almost five years!) to smear the subject of the Jeff Rense article using bogus or non-existent citations seems to be a principal motivation of every IP on the list; I'm amazed nothing's ever been done about this: