Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1007

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

[edit]

Reported user has been blocked as a suspected meat puppet account. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:15, 3 April 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.

There is a user User:DrbrandY, his account was created in 2017. Now his only edits came yesterday and all were about a page Yogesh Dube. The suspicious bit is that the user seems to be well aware of basic wiki terminologies like mainspace,sanboxes etc and about why to use a sandbox. For someone to create a C- class article on their first day of editing is odd. The more concerning bit is that this Yogesh page was deleted twice before for promotion. I also see that his userpage is strikingly similar to ones I previously reported as socks(who were confirmed).

I suspect this to be more than just a case of paid editing. Its seems more likely to be a part of a sockfarm where this account was "aged" until autoconfirmation , But I'm not sure "who" the sockmaster could be. So how should I proceed with reporting this user?. Daiyusha (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
You could add this possible sock to a CU request? Dusti*Let's talk!* 06:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, please remember to notify folks when you start an AN/I discussion about them. I've done this for ya :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 06:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Dusti: Thanks, but in case of sockpuppetry, isn't it considered counterproductive informing the user about this discussion. When I report someone directly for sock investigation, it does state that its not necessary. Daiyusha (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Daiyusha: If you wanted to open a sockpuppetry investigation, SPI is that way. If you start a discussion here, you notify the user. GoldenRing (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. I have no doubt that this is a meatpuppet of some spamming outfit, but it is not really worth it trying to find out which. From experience, these spammers know how to evade CU or use different freelancers and/or proxies each time. I'm happy to receive reports like this on my talk page. MER-C 08:26, 3 April 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.

Bhaskarbhagawati and Kamarupi[edit]

Bhaskarbhagawati has agreed to take the content-dispute to WP:DRN and not edit Kamrupi dialect, Kamarupi Prakrit and related articles/talkpages until the DRN process is completed (voluntary restriction logged here). Other involved editors are willing to participate
The reported behavioral-issues, which were set aside for the moment, may need to examined more carefully if another complaint becomes necessary. Abecedare (talk) 06:13, 4 April 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.

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

There has been an ongoing issue at Kamrupi dialect, Kamarupi Prakrit, as well as a number of related articles, wherein Bhaskarbhagawati wishes the articles to reflect the unqualified claim that the former (a modern dialect of Assamese) is in actuality the same language as the latter (a 12th century language). Opposition to this has been near-universal (the only other editor to agree with him has been permanently banned), particularly given the absolute lack of corroboration and, in fact, direct contradiction of this claim in literature; insomuch as Bhaskarbhagawati has provided attribution, they've been cherry-picked statements twisted from context.

This issue has been going on sporadically for the better part of a decade and Bhaskarbhagawati is not listening. More recently, this has gotten disruptive enough to trigger a page protection [1]. He has also recently taken to stonewalling in the article talk (for example [2]). He has brought up the dispute at RSN, even though the dispute with his desired article changes has not been the sources he uses, but rather what he claims they say. This might even constitute a form of WP:SHOPPING.

And, in the interest of providing some corroboration of this account, here is a list of relevant notices wherein administrators dropped the ball in sanctioning or correcting Bhaskarbhagawati's behavior

ANI, February 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati and Chaipau were both warned for edit warring and the issue of Bhaskarbhagawati's stonewalling was brought up.
ANI, March 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati was shown to be editing disruptively and failing to contribute to productive talk page discussion.
ANI, March 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati was again shown to be editing disruptively and not contributing productive to talk page discussion.
ANI, August 2012, ANI, April 2013, and ANI, June 2013 wherein Chaipau repeatedly attempted to report Bhaskarbhagawati's disruption and edit warring, but was was told to discuss the matter some more or take the issue to DRN.

Bhaskarbhagawati does not listen to consensus. He does not cease editing when he knows his edits are contentious. His behavior has long been disruptive, and it's surely been frustrating for user:Chaipau, who has spent the most time dealing with Bhaskarbhagawati's disruption. IMHO, an indefinite topic ban (which, given what he tends to edit around, would amount to a de facto ban) would be the best course of action. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 04:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I won't be able to take a look at the editor conduct issues in any detail at the moment, but given the resumed edit-warring I have full-protected Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect, and informed Bhaskarbhagawati about the discretionary sanctions applicable to India-related articles. Abecedare (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Abecedare, i like to thank Ƶ§œš¹ for bringing the issue here, although i myself considered bringing it here, if wp:edit warring persisted. Abecedare i like to inform here that this dispute started back in 2012, with an preconceived notion of some editors including user Chaipau and user Aesoes, that a modern language/dialect cannot have a history, thus original article was divided into Kamrupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect citing lack of sources ?? As Aeusoes thankfully brought lot of things here, i will discuss them one by one.
  • Opposition to this has been near-universal (the only other editor to agree with him has been permanently banned) Most people involved in past and present in current dispute hardly contributed to the article, other editor who he referred to was actually seems to be native speaker of Kamrupi, who seems to frustrated with their handling of the dispute. Instead of recommending mentor-ship by community, Aeusoes wrote a well designed case to topic ban him, fully supported by user Chaipau, which further aggrieved the issue.
  • particularly given the absolute lack of corroboration and, in fact, direct contradiction of this claim in literature; insomuch as Bhaskarbhagawati has provided attribution, they've been cherry-picked statements twisted from context. The said attribution was done not unilaterally as portrayed here, rather was based on recommendation of wp:rsn (diff, diff), to do their part in addressing long pending dispute, which Aeusoes failed to point although he was part of discussion. For cherry picking, said citations were take to wp:rsn, and they think it in different way, even even user Chaipau has different opinion on this.
  • This issue has been going on sporadically for the better part of a decade and Bhaskarbhagawati is not listening. More recently, this has gotten disruptive enough to trigger a page protection [3]. I agree with Aesoes on this point, this article is in bad shape since 2012, when Chaipau and other uninvolved editors including Aeusoes divided the original article due to lack of sources, as informed above. As for listening, it seems Aeusoes said that he not going to consider sources further, as pointed above. As for page protection, again it is misrepresented, it was i who requested page protection to halt the edit war.
  • He has also recently taken to stonewalling in the article talk (for example [4]). He has brought up the dispute at RSN, even though the dispute with his desired article changes has not been the sources he uses, but rather what he claims they say. This might even constitute a form of WP:SHOPPING.For so called stonewalling, was a discussion where it was asked if consensus, if any, can change with newer sources, which Aeusoes answered in negative, as discussed above. As talk page discussion failed, i have taken this matter for binding consensus to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Removal of reliable sources, where all the sources listed, especially most important one, along with entire reference section of both the article.
  • And, in the interest of providing some corroboration of this account, here is a list of relevant notices wherein administrators dropped the ball in sanctioning or correcting Bhaskarbhagawati's behavior
ANI, February 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati and Chaipau were both warned for edit warring and the issue of Bhaskarbhagawati's stonewalling was brought up.
ANI, March 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati was shown to be editing disruptively and failing to contribute to productive talk page discussion.
ANI, March 2013 wherein Bhaskarbhagawati was again shown to be editing disruptively and not contributing productive to talk page discussion.
ANI, August 2012, ANI, April 2013, and ANI, June 2013 wherein Chaipau repeatedly attempted to report Bhaskarbhagawati's disruption and edit warring, but was was told to discuss the matter some more or take the issue to DRN. The selective old threads brought here by Aeusoes are linked, some of them are opened by myself, casual editor can judge it, i don't want to comment on the same.
  • Bhaskarbhagawati does not listen to consensus. He does not cease editing when he knows his edits are contentious. His behavior has long been disruptive, and it's surely been frustrating for user:Chaipau, who has spent the most time dealing with Bhaskarbhagawati's disruption. IMHO, an indefinite topic ban (which, given what he tends to edit around, would amount to a de facto ban) would be the best course of action. Here, what Aeusoes saying is identical as he did for other involved editor back in 2012, with selective and well designed case, overlooking that i am the original and most involved editor in Kamrup and Kamrupi topic, which otherwise attracts negligible edits.
Thus, to conclude it is clear case of wp:bad faith editing,wp:censorship, blocking of wp:dispute resolution processes etc. Although Wikipedia is an collaborative process, involvement of user Aeusoes on the subject seems to hampering in efforts of attaining binding consensus, which can confirmed by history section of both the articles, where existing reliable sources and large old content are persistently deleted. As reliable sources and wp:noticeboards are disregarded by them, i don't know where to go next. Finally, i like to see wider involvement of editors in neglected subjects like current one, but for now its seems difficult. Abecedare, consider helping on this.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll leave it to others to read Bhaskarbhagawati's links and come to their own judgment. I do think a link to the "well designed case" against the other editor is worthy of sharing, which can be found here. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 22:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • ANI is not really the best place to settle a content-dispute or even analyze the related 7-year history of contributor conduct; that's why, for now, I am not addressing the individual points raised above even though I have read the posts and sampled the linked discussions. In interest of moving forward:
I am making the proposal since talkpage discussions are clearly at an impasse and in the hope that such voluntary steps will preempt the need for community-imposed restrictions. Abecedare (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how years-long problematic contributor conduct doesn't fall under "chronic, intractable behavioral problems". I don't have a lot of faith that DRN will yield much in the way of resolution. In the past, Bhaskarbhagawati has shied away from contributing when the DRN process starts. But I'm willing to participate. If it comes to it, we can come back here after a lack of resolution and bring the issue up again.
Is there a reason you've worded your question with the assumption that Bhaskarbhagawati would start the DRN process? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 04:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I posed the question to Bhaskar because (1) they wish to change the status quo at the articles and therefore it would be natural for them to make the case for the changes at WP:DRN, and (2) as the links you provided earlier showed, Bhaskar is the one who has equivocated in the past about discussing the issue to DRN. So it would be good to get a straight-up answer from them. Abecedare (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Abecedare i accept your suggestion and willing to maintain status quo, will take it to wp:drn for binding decision. They are most welcome there to settle the bitter long pending dispute.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bhaskarbhagawati: Thanks for the response. That's helpful. I wanted to double-check though that besides taking the issue to WP:DRN you agree "not to edit Kamrupi dialect, Kamarupi Prakrit and related articles/talkpages until the DRN process is completed" ? Abecedare (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Abecedare, indeed i have no intention to contribute further on said articles untill i get some binding consensus although articles are in half deleted state, i expect the same from user Chaipau and others, furthermore you will be informed about such consensus to peacefully enforce it, thank you i really appreciate your help.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Abecedare: The issue here is not about content dispute, as user:Bhaskarbhagawati is trying to present here, but about a behavior pattern that he has persistently and consistently demonstrated since 2012. As the remarks by others have shown, he makes no effort to come to a consensus and have persistently rejected 3O (I shall give examples later today). Once consensus goes against his point of view, he starts WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM to try to include his point of view, by using different templates and other techniques (e.g. using "Kamrupi language links here" on Kamrupi dialect etc.). He floods article ledes with cherry-picked quotes that he mines with search engines. His effort at the WP:RSN is in line with gaming the system—to get his quotes anointed as "reliable sources". Even when it was pointed out to him that it was not an RS issue, he still wanted to use it. The He tries WP:POVFORK to include his POV (e.g. Ancient Kamrup for Kamarupa). This pattern of behavior is highly disruptive. The stunted growth of Kamrupi dialect since 2012 is itself an example. I shall document this pattern of behavior in more detail below sometime later. Chaipau (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Chaipau thanks and welcome to discussion. I am addressing your points below.
  • The issue here is not about content dispute, as user:Bhaskarbhagawati is trying to present here, but about a behavior pattern that he has persistently and consistently demonstrated since 2012. Indeed it is in their interest to portray the same as behavior issue, although entire dispute started with division of original article in 2012.
  • Once consensus goes against his point of view, he starts WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM to try to include his point of view, by using different templates and other techniques (e.g. using "Kamrupi language links here" on Kamrupi dialect etc.).The example given for so called gamingthesystem, the template {{Redirect|Kamrupi language||Kamrupi (disambiguation){{!}}Kamrupi}} cannot be a controversial one, effort here by Chaipau is to cement his point that said speech is mere dialect which entirely lacks history.
  • He floods article ledes with cherry-picked quotes that he mines with search engines. His effort at the WP:RSN is in line with gaming the system—to get his quotes anointed as "reliable sources". Even when it was pointed out to him that it was not an RS issue, he still wanted to use it. I have discussed above how attribution of each views are done as per wp:rsn, the cherry pickings Chaipau referring, his recent view seems altogether different ? For mining quotes from search engine comment, he may not sitting besides me when i am editing.I have taken it to wp:rsn to follow wp:dispute resolution process, rather wp:edit warring which Chaipau seems quite used to. Chaipau intentionally misrepresented the wp:rsn, where they do said issue maybe not of rs although they are reliable to use, if anybody disagree should be attributed (diff, diff).
  • He tries WP:POVFORK to include his POV (e.g. Ancient Kamrup for Kamarupa). This pattern of behavior is highly disruptive. The example provided is too misleading, although content should not discussed here, to clear Ancient Kamrup was for ancient history of Kamrup dating several centuries B.C. (references are in article) (see Medieval Kamrup too), while Kamarupa more appropriately Kamarupa kingdom is 4-12th century political entity.
  • @Chaipau: I don't disagree with you regarding the past behavior. Our difference perhaps lies in how to deal with it. Since Bhaskar now is willing to take the issue to DRN (and not edit the articles/talkpages in the meantime), I think that is worth a try. Would you be willing to participate in that process if Bhaskar does initiate it? Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Abecedare: We could try, but I don't believe this will resolve this issue. Chaipau (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @Chaipau: Thanks. Your scepticism is only natural given the experience since 2012. The reason I hold out some hope for DRN is that the volunteer at the board will, hopefully, help keep the discussion focused and not let it devolve into the frustratingly lengthy back-and-forths as has happened in the past. And in case that doesn't work, it will be easier to make the case for community sanctions or discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA.
Unless the participants or another admin have additional input, I'll close this section and log the agreement in a few hours. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:05, 4 April 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.

JohnnyStew and TheAmazingJohnnyStew[edit]

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.

JohnnyStew and TheAmazingJohnnyStew have both edited the The Minimalists articles distruptively. All of JohnnyStew and TheAmazingJohnnyStew's contributions are to this one article and editing behavior seems to suggest that they might be involved in undisclosed paid editing. They have made signfigant number of edits to the article, usually adding content that seems promotional in nature and reverting other editor's changes. Clovermoss (talk) 05:05, 4 April 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.

Rangeblock request for 2601:245:4300:FDA::/64[edit]

range-blocked by Ponyo --Wikiemirati (talk) 22:54, 4 April 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.

There's been a ton of disruptive editing from this range on the above-linked pages. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, this seems to be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reggieplata . See [5] vs [6]. Pinging DoRD and Mz7 who looked into this case. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Obviously still being used for block evasion. Reblocked for 3 months.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:07, 4 April 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.

Legal threat at User talk:IAMFOREVER143[edit]

Indeffed by 331dot. SemiHypercube 🎂 16:41, 6 April 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 appears to be caste-warring - repeated removal of cited information - and has added on their talk page

"I will take this Wikipedia Issue to Court.... Let the Judges make sure which is The Truth"

-Arjayay (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked the user. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 5 April 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.

Sockpuppet account[edit]

Sock indeffed by Ymblanter. SemiHypercube 🎂 19:13, 6 April 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.

Xiaoyuankun2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This editor is hiding unsourced and POV edits with deceptive edit summaries (example here), and seems to be a new account of Xiaoyuankun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) edit summaries, who is apparently banned for exactly this, i.e calling all their edits grammar changes. Eik Corell (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Eik Corell I see that you've reported the same user twice in this report, did you mean to report a user as a sock of them and just mistyped it? For sockpuppetry cases, WP:SPI is the more traditional venue. User:Xiaoyuankun is currently indeffed blocked anyway. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Ahh yeah, got confused in the formatting of it. I've fixed it now; The sockpuppet is "Xiaoyuankun2", whereas the original user is "Xiaoyuankun". Eik Corell (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 Done, blocked indef--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You gotta hand it to him, that's a cunning name for a sockpuppet. EEng 12:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Admit it. You would never have clocked it unless someone pointed it out. ;-) 81.129.194.138 (talk) 15:37, 5 April 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:Majeedthaika[edit]

Resolved

Could someone perhaps drop in on User:Majeedthaika, who seems to have redirected their user/talk page to a non-existant user account e.g. User talk:Julianne Holt-Lunstad. Julianne Holt-Lunstad is a psychologist at Brigham Young University - see Julianne Holt-Lunstad. I've been up for too long to be able to deal with this right now. thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Majeedthaika: - FYI. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I've sorted the pages out. — JJMC89(T·C) 05:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive Clerking at AfD[edit]

As below: User:Sheldybett is topic banned from clerking at all admin-related areas, including (but not limited to) WP:CSD, WP:PROD, WP:AFD, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:RFPP. The topic ban is indefinite and can be appealed after a minimum of six months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:52, 6 April 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:Sheldybett will clerk discussions being held at AfD. Unfortunately they seem to have trouble doing this with the competence required for the task. Numerous editors have expressed concerns about their abilities while doing so in the last four months ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12])). The concerns in those diffs, each expressed by a different editor, include nearly the full range of options available for non-admin actions at AfD. It is possible that this user has trouble with other aspects of editing, as I notice several declines of speedy deletion tags and at least one file they uploaded itself tagged, and one question of hounding, but I admit I have not fully investigated those areas so I can not speak to their validity.
However, what is clear to me is their repeated inability to clerk at AfD. This suggests, at minimum, that they should be topic banned from clerking at any deletion forum. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly support a topic ban Every few weeks, we get a reprieve and then we are back where we started. It's a waste of time to continue to deal with this and as indicated here here and here. Sheldybett was more than aware of the potential consequence of continuing their disruptive behavior at AFD (and elsewhere, for that matter.) They have repeatedly shown they lack even a basic understanding of deletion policies - outside of AFD - incorrect copyright tagging, speedy decline, speedy decline a7 isn't even eligible for the subject they tagged. And just for ease, here's a list of all the discussions where they were told in detail why they shouldn't be doing what they're doing: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]).([20], [21], [22],[23]. Waiting for a response or a promise for them will be useless, per the first three diffs I provided. Praxidicae (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll also add that I'd support an outright ban from deletion areas in their entirety, including nominating articles as they do not appear to understand notability criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ban from clerking AfDs per lack of policy understanding. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban – I left my (friendly) message thinking this was an isolated incident and they were unaware of community consensus around this area, but this appears not to be the case. Non-admin clerking at AfD is rarely helpful and frequently disruptive, so a topic ban here is the obvious solution. Bradv🍁 15:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. It's clear from the links provided in this discussion and other issues raised on their talk page that they are not understanding the problems with their editing in relation to AfD, despite the number of different people who've tried to explain in different ways. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The original diffs compounded with Praxidicae's subsequently indicate that the user seems not to actually understand what they are meant to be doing. ——SerialNumber54129 15:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support but I must ask the obvious question - disruptive editing is one of the issues for which we block users, why has this user not been blocked ? Do you want me to do it ? Nick (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nick: - but if bans really are to be preventative, and we don't think they're editing in bad faith, then escalating beyond a TBAN seems wildly overreacting Nosebagbear (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: and where did I mention a ban ? We routinely block good faith but disruptive editors to prevent further damage and disruption, and to permit a suitable resolution of the issue. Nick (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nick: - sorry I mis-interpreted your statement, I see it was with regard of preventing an ongoing problem during discussion of longer-term solution. As such, I'll readjust - they've not done any AfD clerking since this discussion was started (or edited at all, I assume they're not around atm). I wouldn't say a block is needed at this point - obviously if we get another poor nac-action (or potentially any) then that would probably be justified. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Per all the above. We've given them enough rope, and they still continue. A topic ban is probably the only way to stop this from occurring. The Duke 16:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I've seen several bad closes from them and very few good ones, and I'm not the only one. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban I have no doubt that the editor wants to help, but the issues are persistent, and the editor seems unable or unwilling to address them. A topic ban will spare the time of other editors and administrators in deletion areas, and perhaps encourage the editor to be more careful in their editing elsewhere. Bakazaka (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. Examining the linked examples, I'm seeing a lot of very poor English, sometimes to the point of incomprehensibility, so maybe there's a language problem here? To understand the subtleties of our many policies and guidelines sufficiently well to do clerking/adminny things, you really need a good command of the language. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban of deletion matters in general and XfD in particular. User needs to be made aware of the dangers of thin ice. My sense is the user will need to be blocked. DlohCierekim 19:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ban from clerking AfDs. I previously suggested to the user to participate in deletion discussions but to not close them. As the advice hasn't been taken a ban is now required. Schwede66 23:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I am a fan of allowing everyone to do any job they have the tools to do, but because they lack the delete button no non-admin should be clerking AfDs/MfDs except for SNOW keeps after 7 days and procedural closes where the page has already been CSD deleted. Very experienced users might handle the odd Speedy Keep or odd situation. No non-Admin should be relisting. Legacypac (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Not my area, & I've noticed nothing, but I believe we need to be ready to restrain persistently incompetent editors. From the above it is evident there is a real nuisance here. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support TBAN per WP:Competence. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC).
  • Support as one of the too many users who have asked them to stop. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd like to note since @Boing! said Zebedee: told them yesterday they should avoid any sort of maintenance at AFD, they've gone ahead and NAC'd an article. It's not a bad NAC, but I would think if you're at ANI for a topic ban based on your behavior at AFD, it's ill advised to do anything at AFD other than participate by voting. There's also been absolutely no communication from them regarding all the concerns here or their talk page. And then there's this slew of pointy edits at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal:_Removing_non-admin_closures_at_AfD where they clearly demonstrate a total lack of competence in this area, and possibly elsewhere. I know it might appear that I'm beating a dead horse, but perhaps this discussion should be broadened.Praxidicae (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
And because of what I outlined above, as well as what is now their fourth request for rollback (and still no communincation or response regarding concerns here) that a lengthy block might be in order. Praxidicae (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree. This remark (if I was topic banned from AfD and other deletion areas, I would move on to somewhere else such as WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:RFPP for a change) in particular suggests that they still do not understand; combined with a lack of engagement here, there would indeed appear to be more than just AfD-clerking in the frame. ——SerialNumber54129 13:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I've blocked for a week, to at least make them stop while this discussion is in progress. They can be unblocked the minute they promise to stop all activity at AFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • As Sheldybett has now said "If I was topic banned from AfD and other deletion areas, I would move on to somewhere else such as WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:RFPP for a change or I just shall quit Wikipedia for good." See diff. That would only shift the problems elsewhere, so alternative proposal below...

Alternative proposal[edit]

User:Sheldybett is topic banned from clerking at all admin-related areas, including (but not limited to) WP:CSD, WP:PROD, WP:AFD, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:RFPP. The topic ban is indefinite and can be appealed after a minimum of six months.

  • Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I think they have made this decision for us. ——SerialNumber54129 13:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Given the communication cited by BsZ, this seems to be the only option left. Kleuske (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support per all the reasoning above and per my own above and I'd add the caveat that their block is extended until they demonstrate a willingness to communicate. Praxidicae (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    I've no objection to another admin adjusting the block in any way that seems appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as first choice given their statement at WT:AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as we are not helped by the problem activity shifting elsewhere. Schwede66 18:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, lack of competence and language skills are indistinguishable from trolling. Levivich 19:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Per all the above. The Duke 21:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for a willful refusal to accept concerns on competence, despite at least 5 attempts to resolve the issue with lower level assistance, warnings and sanctions Nosebagbear (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per everything written by all the other editors in this thread. This editor simply does not get it, and their English skills seem woefully inadequate. I suggest that they go do some good work at the Wikipedia of their native language. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:09, 6 April 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.

Fake references[edit]

Thanks to Doug Weller for spotting the pattern here. I think the following search results speak for themselves:

"Atomic models for the polypeptide backbones of myohemerythrin and hemerythrin" is being used to support statements in Alluvial fan, Urban open space, The Arena (Ahmedabad), and Draft:Saudi German Hospital Group, among others. "Formate assay in body fluids: application in methanol poisoning" is being used in Chilik River, Holcomb Fire, Baja California slider, Lolita Lebrón, and >40 other pages. And so on. As far as I can tell from Wikiblame, each time the refs ahave been added by a different ' user. One theory is that there's some "How to create a Wiki page" tutorial that's using these as example refs. But when I Google for the same titles, I find no such tutorial. So what, exactly, is going on here? I'm willing to list some of the users doing this, but before I start leaving scary ANI notices, does anyone have an explanation for why so many users might be doing this? I don't think it's a sockfarm. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The cited articles have PubMed IDs in order, starting with PMID #1 (Formate assay in body fluids: application in methanol poisoning). I bet there's some citation tool where if you click it, it adds the next PMID that's not already in the article as an example, under the assumption that the article author will fill it in with the desired metadata, and that these are just ones that never got filled in. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|😹|✝️|John 15:12|☮️|🍂|T/C 20:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Random paranoid suggestion - someone doing research on reliability of Wikipedia by adding BS refs and seeing how quickly we remove them?PMC(talk) 20:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Never mind, Goldenshimmer's answer makes much more sense. Occam's razor :P ♠PMC(talk) 20:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Inserting a reference that's just a number in Visual Editor produces a PMID reference. Peter James (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm still confused about how this PMID thing happened, but I'm going to start removing these from articles where they clearly don't belong. Natureium (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Every one I've checked seems to have been added by VisualEditor. So I'm thinking it's either:
  1. People are just typing random numbers into the from and adding in whatever reference comes up.
  2. People are adding valid references, and some bug in VisualEditor is silently replacing the refs with crazy low-PMID ones.
  3. Some other tool is interacting with VisualEditor, causing the behavior Goldenshimmer describes.
  4. People are trying to reuse existing references. That is, the user wants to reuse reference [4], so they type "4" into VE's form. Something strange comes up about polypeptide backbones, myohemerythrin and hemerythrin, but think think "hey, that's probably just some strange wiki term, I'll learn what it means later" and just click "Insert".
I don't think it's mostly (1), or there would be more hits for PMID 69, PMID 123, PMID 420, etc. (2) wouldn't be shocking, but so far no one's been able to reproduce the bug. I don't know about (3) ... maybe something to do with Wiki Ed? My bet is on (4), unless someone can think of a better explanation. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I've created filter 979 (hist · log) to track this. If it's a bug, I expect to see experienced editors doing this as well (that wouldn't show up in the search results, because they probably would have fixed the problem right away). If not, it's probably user error, and the filter can be set to give a friendly warning. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Suffusion of Yellow, Your number 4 is the explanation I was thinking of, but I removed a PMID 11 (I think?) from an article that had fewer than 11 references, so I ran out of possible explanations. Natureium (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Natureium: Possibility (5): The user doesn't realize that reference numbers are assigned automatically, so they think the first step is to choose the number. So, if they are adding a reference near the end of the page, they try to "make room" for the refs that they plan on adding later. In any case, this problem was reported at phab:T198456 last year. Seems it's a problem on other wikis as well. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Meat socks at Identity Evropa refused to answer COI[edit]

Identity Evropa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Student4N (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
SheepDirectory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
SamSamuel11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Bakken56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

A continuation of this ANI thread. So after I asked these accounts to clarify their COI on March 30, All of them disappeared, until yesterday when one of them blanked my message and left this angry message at my talk page. A brief look ar their contribs looks like clicking random article or rabbit hole and make small edits eager to get past 50 edits. One of them sneakily inserted "alleged" on a section related to the group before finally reaching 50 edits and jumping onto the main article. This neo-Nazi group has an active, ongoing effort to whitewash their Wikipedia page. A couple of them got indeffed in their campaign last summer. Need admins willing to action.  It looks like a duck to me. Tsumikiria 🦙🌉 00:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Tsumikiria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has asked the following of multiple editors:
Hi, [USERNAME]. You are expected to answer the following questions in a clear, honest, and yes/no manner:
  • Are you a member of the organization(s) known as Identity Evropa (IE) or American Identity Movement (AIM)?
  • Are you personally or financially related to IE/AIM or other white nationalist/"Identitarian" groups, or Nathan Damigo, Patrick Casey, and Elliot Kline, in any way?
If so, you must declare your conflict of interest. Undisclosed editing, especially undisclosed paid editing, are serious violations of our policies. You must respond to COI inquiries and cease editing immediately until you have done so.
The detailed notice is below. Thank you. (Emphasis in original)
...followed by the standard Template:uw-coi notice.
To make things worse, he then took these editors to ANI complaning when they blanked the message or posted an angry response. I certainly would have blanked such a message if I had received it.
I have no problem with uw-coi notice, but Tsumikiria's added text seem overly aggressive and accusatory for a first contact with a suspected coi editor. It is also factually untrue. No policy says that coi editors "must respond to COI inquiries and cease editing immediately until they have done so." It is perfectly acceptable for a coi editor to not declare anything and to instead delete the warning and silently stop editing in the area where he has a coi.
None of the above implies that these users do or do not have a coi. That only becomes an issue if they continue to edit the pages where they are suspected to have a coi after receiving a warning. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if I'm allowed to post here but this user tried to do the same with me. They seem to prowl articles about radical leftism and when anyone tries to edit or portray them in a bad way, the user goes onto their page and accuses them of rules violations usually without evidence, in a way that implies that the user is a moderator. I was personally accused of being a sock because I (actually what they said) "knew how to use wikipedia". Kilometerman (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Kilometerman have a content dispute with me and Doug Weller on Antifa (United States) where they added insufficiently supported and undue material, which has been rigorously discussed and settled in the past months, onto the lead. I dragged them into discussion per standard WP:BRD process and asked them to stop potential personal attacks, but they blanked my message. The full exchange can be found here. Tsumikiria 🦙🌉 02:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I originally meant to use Template:uw-paid1, but feared that this COI situation may not necessarily involve paid, so I thought I could use uw-coi instead. The "must not edit until respond" clause might fit uw-paid better, I could be under the wrong impression that the same thing apply to regular COI inquiries as well. Sorry if I seemed too aggressive and I'll better my approach in the future. Tsumikiria 🦙🌉 03:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
In general, it is a bad idea to make threats or ultimatums of other editors unless you intend to follow through on them. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The reason we don't have a template like the paid editing template for unpaid editing is because the same rules don't apply. It's a TOU violation to engage in undisclosed paid editing. That's not the case for a member of an organization. They have a COI, yes, but it's handled differently and there are fewer bright lines. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I certainly do not want undisclosed meatpuppets of the neo-Nazi group Identity Evropa or its rebranded successor "American Identity Movement" editing anything whatsoever related to those groups or American or contemporary or 20th or 21st century politics in general . I suppose that it is hypothetically possible that such an editor might contribute positively about butterflies or stamp collecting. But any inquiries to such editors must accurately reflect our policies and guidelines, and it looks to me like you got over your skis here, Tsumikiria. Tainted evidence is often worse than no evidence whatsoever. Please be careful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Diffs[edit]

May we have a few diffs showing each of the listed users exhibiting behavior that would support them being meat puppets, please? Nobody wants undisclosed meatpuppets of a neo-Nazi group editing Wikipedia, but nobody wants someone who isn't a undisclosed meatpuppets of a neo-Nazi group being accused of being one either. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I shouldn't expect people to read page history or previous discussion. Here's a few:
  • 2019-03-26T13:56:41 SamSamuel11 removed the well-sourced info that AIM is a rebrand of IE, as well as IE facing decline in membership, falsely claiming no citation.
  • 2019-03-26T16:15:17 SheepDirectory appeared out of the blue to revert on behalf of SamSamuel11.
  • SheepDirectory previously inserted "alleged" onto the sentence and the group was renamed American Identity Movement (AIM), [allegedly] as part of a public relations effort to avoid scrutiny on Unicorn Riot. These two edits appears completely unrelated in topic field with their other edits. For a brand new editor they display proficiency such as Twinkle usage. Most of their edits has been small copyedits with no large content addition.
Gotta leave my laptop for a while. Will update later. Tsumikiria 🦙🌉 21:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

93.38.65.148[edit]

93.38.65.148 (talk · contribs) writes in abominable English, curses in Italian in his edit summaries, and has a long history of bad edits including edit warring. He is being disruptive on Minhag, without engaging in any discussion, either on the article talkpage or his user talkpage. I think a 24-48-72 hour block might be the best course of action. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP user for 24 hours for edit warring on Minhag. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Cmt: That IP is blocked on it:wp as a sock of 1ShabElion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editor PearlSt82 - re DogsBite.org article[edit]

User:PearlSt82 is engaging in disruptive editing in pursuit of pushing a particular agenda or point of view on the single article Dogsbite.org. This has been going on for two months recently, but PearlSt82's hatred for the topic/target of the article (DogsBite.org) is documented in Wikipedia as far back as 2015.[24]

On 3 Dec 2018, Dwanyewest created the article page 'DogsBite.org' (ending with 3 sentences, 13 citations). PearlSt82 immediately took it over the same day (ending with 5 sentences, 12 citations). I discovered this page in early February 2019 and found it to be a wholey disparaging, critical article.

I recommended for Speedy Deletion-G10 (19 Feb 2019). It was denied.

It got nominated for deletion based on "not notable." Keep.

I attempted to edit the article. For everything I edited, I heavily described/documented on the Talk page, but despite that PearlSt82 continued to revert and/or over-ride my edits, including reverting at least FIVE (5) of my edits in a 24 hour period on 26 Feb 2019. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] Those examples are rather small, but a lot of larger sections were reverted, too, on other days. I think PearlSt82 panicked when faced with a 3RR report (which I didn't do at the time).

On 25 Feb 2019, Dwanyewest tried to take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, but it was bounced back as not an appropriate avenue.

On 4 Mar 2019, Dwanyewest suggested WP:Thirdopinion.

On 6 Mar 2019, PearlSt82 filed on "Dispute Resolution Noticeboard" but that sat for weeks with no comments and timed out on 24 Mar 2019.

I guess it automatically went to RFC (request for comment) right after that, but no one is interested in joining in this discussion because (a) it's esoteric and unless you're involved in the subject, it's confusing, and (b) the Talk page is LITTERED with voluminous discussions and comments.

Yesterday & today I attempted to re-work the article, bring in new information, and I addressed PearlSt82's most recent complaints he'd made on the Talk page. Nope. He reverted MY ENTIRE WORK. (That's not the first time he's done that.) I confess to reverting it right back, because I considered his blanket reversion to be vandalism. There's nothing in my work that is false, inflammatory or libelous, and everything I wrote was well cited. On the other hand, PearlSt82's edits continuously bring in contentious material (citations that attack DogsBite.org), writes personal opinion, and adds his own original research (some of which has been the subject of at least two libel reports to Wikipedia).

There has been ZERO concensus between PearlSt82 and myself (Nomopbs), and zero cooperation on PearlSt82's part. At least I've tried to bring the article closer to NPOV numerous times, but PearlSt82 keeps destroying my work or involving yet another administrative process. I suppose his intention is to wear me down or plow me under. I don't know. But no matter how softly I word my change-explanations, nothing seems to soften PearlSt82 or get any sort of cooperation whatsoever.

I have probably spent well over 10 times MORE time and effort addressing PearlSt82's complaints, edits, and reversions on this one article than I have spent doing work on the article! I am NOT exaggerating. And that level of disruptive editing is completely unacceptable.

Maybe since PearlSt82 HATES DogsBite.org, and has for so long, he should be prohibited from editing that page. I don't kow what else to do about it.

Nomopbs (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I vehemently disagree my edits are disruptive as I have made good faith efforts to gain consensus through various means. My count for my reverts on Feb 26 is 2, not 5, and I have taken all further edits regarding that series to the talk page and only have edited the article space again today. In none of my edits have I made OR, or expressed my personal opinion, but rather every edit I made has been reliably sourced, and has been a good faith reflection of the sources. Nomopbs' username appears to be an abbreviation of "No more pitbulls", and they are a WP:SPA that is only concerned with pushing an anti-Pit bull/pro-Breed specific legislation POV through various pages, including dogsbite.org and Fatal dog attacks in the United States. I have no idea what they are talking about regarding libel reports. On Fatal dog attacks in the United States they have recently added a list of bulleted cherry picked primary studies without attempting to discuss or gain consensus. Their talk page comments are steeped in numerous bad faith assumptions, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and an egregious misreading of core wikipedia policies. One of the more absurd misreadings of WP policy is this edit to WP:DRN where they state that my proposed wording on dogsbite.org's history section "exposes [my] true WP:G10 purposes". Recommend WP:BOOMERANG as user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd argue that someone with a username like "no more pitbulls" has a WP:COI (not to bementioing being an WP:SPA) in dog related articles and shouldn't be editing them. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Based on a review of their contribution history, I would concur. It's highly unlikely that it represents something else. SportingFlyer T·C 00:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nomopbs: your version of the Dogsbite.org reads more like a promotional piece about the website, that the previous version. I'd suggest reverting the rewrite, and then proposing individual changes on the article talkpage. Secondly, given your username (as CatainEek spotted), and your editing-history, do you have any conflict of interest with respect to the website or the issue it advocates for? Abecedare (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wow, you guys are funny. The meaning of my username is personal and private, but I like your version. Maybe I should adopt it as my 'forward facing' persona. Anyone who has reviewed my edits on Fatal dog attacks in the United States could easily see that I give equal attention to fatalities caused by non-pit bull dogs as by pit bulls. If more of the entries are about pit bulls, it's because there are more deaths by pit bulls, apparently. That's not my fault; I report it like I see it. So y'all know, I do not have a website or an organization about pit bulls (pro or con), I do not work for any organization, I'm not paid by anyone to do what I do in Wikipedia, nor even encouraged. I get a lot of flak about it from my friends because I jumped in with both feet, barely come up for air... but I haven't yet drowned. It's how I am with topics I'm intensely interested in. I've been using Wikipedia for years but didn't know anyone could sign up to be an editor until last fall. I've been through some learning curves and feel pretty confident about my grasp of the policies at this point. PearlSt82 has been a trial by fire, though. No one should have to fight a diehard like that as a novice wiki editor. I got interested in the deaths and discovered that the wiki page Fatal dog attacks in the United States was missing about half of the fatalities. I set about locating information on the missing ones and adding them. I wanted a complete list. I liked that the wiki page was a summary of everything all in one place. (Should have been, if for the fact it was missing half the deaths.) I didn't realize I was going to get sucked into an entire world of controversy. Sure, I used the website dogsbite.org as a research tool, but it isn't the only resource I used. Now I've moved on to the academic/scientific/medical studies in order to identify the causes and possible solutions to the problem. At least I'm trying to move on but keep getting sucked back into this. Nomopbs (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • While revisiting the talk page and the glut of new comments, I did notice something interesting that may provide some insight into COI. On February 25th, I pointed out that the term "science whores" was still on a dogsbite.org branded website, which at the time contained a large banner at the top that says "The Maul Talk Manual is endorsed by dogsbite.org and authored by members of our community", a the "dogsbite.org term" metatag as well as a "sponsored by dogsbite.org" banner on the right side. Nomopbs responded here by saying that the comment was "posted 9-years ago by someone else on a blog that is now an archive and not active". If you now look at the live version of the site, all mentions of dogsbite.org have been scrubbed - the top banner, the right nav, and the "dogsbite.org term" metatag are all gone. As the site was inactive for 9 years, I find it very hard to believe that its just coincidence this material was removed just a few weeks after the discussion about the term and how reliable sources discuss the term took place. Its certainly circumstantial, but would suggest to me some form off-wiki coordination and COI. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking over this for fifteen minutes, This edit suggests basic misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. It removes citation of a news article that details problems with the site's data collection (to be sure, the nitpicks do sound minor - if they hand-pick half a dozen cases and they include things like somebody getting killed by a car while fleeing from two pit bulls, I don't see that as tremendously wrong. Also inevitable selection bias) The edit summary says Opinion piece cited violated NPOV and directly refutes actual facts in the case. See http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/two-pit-bulls-maul-a-helpless-man/article49136.html. Now it should be totally clear that sources cannot violate NPOV, only editors. And editors violate NPOV when they play at saying "this source is wrong, this source is right" rather than including both sources and describing their contradictions! This one is not much better, deleting a newspaper's editorial in its own voice saying "WP:RS". The dispute apparently began on Pit bull, where in June 2018 PearlSt82 made this reversion of this edit by User:Michaelandsandy (pinging in case they can tell us more about the past history here) and reinserted a blanket statement that pit bulls are not any more dangerous than any other kind of dog. [31] This may be one of the reversions mentioned by Nomopbs on the dogsbite talk page. Odd part is PealSt82 ended up removing a very old but relevant page of statistics to support his own argument (i.e. the CDC found that Rottweilers caused more fatalities in the mid-90s) here because it was in the wrong place in the article. I am suspicious that this was indeed a dispute predating the article, with strong opinions on both sides, however, those two edits by Nomopbs clearly misinterpret policy. Wnt (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@Wnt: Re dispute predating the article: I don't follow the pit bull article and have never edited it. Nor have I bothered to check revisions of the pit bull article. I didn't join as a wiki editor until Nov 2018, so anything that went on over there last summer was never on my radar and was not anything I was referring to in Talk:DogsBite.org. Neither did PearlSt82 come on my radar until I discovered the Dogsbite.org article (Feb 2019). Indeed, the entirety of the Talk:DogsBite.org page is only 38 days old. Nomopbs (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Wnt: As for the lowellsun.com citation, it was removed by me once and also removed by another editor, or maybe two. I think for a total of three times. Nomopbs (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I looked over PearlSt82's edits again, and I didn't see anything really problematic. There doesn't appear to be a WP:3RR vio, nor does it seem like an edit war. They have been civil, and they have interacted on the talk page thoroughly. I think that the more problematic editor here is Nomopbs. Take for example this edit, showing a less than civil interaction. Or Talk:Dogsbite.org#Article_lacks_Neutral_Point_of_View, where Nomopbs seems to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I don't forsee this ending with a censuring of PearlSt82; I think their conduct has been admirable considering the situation. Rather I say that this matter either boomerang on Nomopbs with probably a topic ban, or the matter dropped. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
And yet, Captain Eek, you fail to notice that PearlSt82 obtained a Template:Uw-3rr WARNING on his Talk page for EDIT WARRING on said Dogsbite.org page on February 27, 2019. [32] I, myself, didn't notice it was there until recently. Nomopbs (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If anything, this should boomerang on Nomopbs. Their characterization of the situation strikes me as completely disingenuous. This seems to be the event they refer to where PearlSt82 'destroyed' their work. However that work involved deleting (one might say 'destroying') what appears to be a meticulously sourced 'Criticism' section. PearlSt82's reversion was equal parts removing newly added content and restoring previous content, which is not the impression given by Nomopbs's statement.
Looking at the talk page, the only incivility I see is from Nomopbs. Thrice they accuse editors of "wasting everyone's time". Their responses in discussions often come off as combative or sarcastic: "OMG, are you kidding me?", "LOL. There's nothing untrue about that statement", "I guess you can't be assuaged. Unless it's YOUR words, you're not going to like it." The other editors involved in the article have behaved with what seems to me an admirable level of patience and cool tempers. Colin M (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomopbs' edit history on Wikipedia (versus PearlSt82's ad hominem attacks)[edit]

Let's look at wiki's statistics (editor contributions), instead of simply jumping on PearlSt82's bandwagon and adding to his smearing my wiki reputation with an ad hominem attack.

Ad hominem: is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

PearlSt82 asserts that I'm anti pit bull, however...

  • PearlSt82's wiki statistics [33] show that PearlSt82 has made 108 edits to the Pit bull page, 44 to Dogsbite.org (whom P considers is anti-pit bull), and the rest mainly to "men's rights movement" type pages.

So tell me... Which editor is looking like a pit bull advocate? And which editor is NOT looking anti-pit bull?

Destructive editing:

  • Going backwards in time, the last 8 edits PearlSt82 made to the pit bull page were REVERTS, earlier was 2 contributions, 3 reverts, 1 contribution, 3 reverts, then 2 contributions.
  • PearlSt82's last biggest contribution on that page was the removal of 11,612 characters,[35] an entire section of 'studies about pit bulls', the majority of which pointed to them being dangerous and implicated them in a higher percentage of attacks than their population percentage indicated.[36] That was in 2016.
  • PearlSt82 did the same thing in 2015. [37]

That's a lot of destruction and not a lot of construction.

Whether or not the reverts were warranted isn't my point. What I'm saying is that in the last three years, PearlSt82 destroyed/removed/reverted more than he contributed (on the pit bull topic). Why? Are the majority of his 108 edits even more years back when he established the page and now he's taken ownership of it (WP:OWN) and is guarding the pit bull article against all comers who might say something unflattering about pit bulls? Scroll further to see the full extent of PearlSt82's reversions on the pit bull page:[38] What you'll see is a long series of reverts. Why these edits? What is he protecting? Does he work for one of the organizations that promotes pit bulls as family pets and pays for research to show they are "no different than any other dog"?

The article Dogsbite.org, though created by editor Dwanyewest, was immediately taken over by PearlSt82. Every single one of his edits contributes only to "criticism" of DogsBite.org as an organization. He has contributed nothing constructive or even neutral. He has railed against all of my contructive or neutral edits on that page. A little bit about DogsBite.org (based on what I see in their website and have read about online): they collect information on fatal dog attacks, they post statistics about such attacks, post that pit bulls are the majority breed involved, post proposed solutions to the pit bull problem including breed specific legislation, and it could be said they are anti-pit bull. Considering PearlSt82's edits on the pit bull page, and the POV you can conclude from those edits, I can see why he must only write criticism on the DogsBite.org article. But that doesn't make it right. And it doesn't excuse his reversions, nor his disruptive editing against me.

Constructive editing:

On the other hand, I have been a heavy contributor to the Fatal dog attacks in the United States article. My edits have been "constructive" (adding text), rather than "destructive" (removing text) or "inhibitive" (reverting). And I don't discriminate between incidents with pit bulls versus non pit bulls. Here [39] is my log of edits to the fatalities pages, just search for "added victim" (from the edit summary column). The last 10 additions I made of victims (in reverse chronological order) were deaths caused by the breeds Rottweiler, Rottweiler, Unspecified, Pits & mixes, Presa Canario, Great Dane, American Bulldog, Pit mix, Pit bull, and German Shepherd. I have added 158,203 bytes to that article and deleted 9,666 bytes (less than 1% of my addition count). Now THAT is a lot of work. If I hated pit bulls, wouldn't I have been adding only fatalities caused by pit bulls (to increase the percentages)? Wouldn't I have quit spending so much time researching, getting citations and writing new entries for fatalities caused by non-pit bulls? It takes about 30 minutes of work for each single fatality I add, and I've added dozens, maybe even a 100 by now. I have been a valuable contributor to Wikipedia on this topic. The fatalities page got so long, someone split it in half (made another page). And then later split it again. So now there are three wiki pages to cover all the fatalies by dog in the USA.

Anyone who spent 5 minutes looking into (not 'at') my contributions/edit history would have seen my neutral POV with respect to pit bulls. If my agenda was to push an anti-pit bull POV, then I would have been done with my work on the Fatalities page long ago. This disruption by PearlSt82 re Dogsbite.org is just a sideline distraction that is keeping me from my real work.

Disruptive editing:

PearlSt82 only used an ad hominem personal attack to get me out of his way, to try to get me banned for WP:SPA or WP:COI, and to try to get sympathetic support for his viewpoint against me (to obtain a false concensus; not based on facts). PearlSt82 accused me above of being "a WP:SPA that is only concerned with pushing an anti-Pit bull/pro-Breed specific legislation POV through various pages." However, there is no evidence that I have made ANY anti-pit bull edits, NOR ANY pro BSL edits. He has failed to support his claims. His 'smoke and mirrors' contribute to my claim that PearlSt82 has been WP:DISRUPTIVE (as he was in 2015 on this very same subject!).

Four years ago, PearlSt82 displayed in great detail his disruptive behavior about DogsBite.org in a 2015 discussion on the Reliable Source Noticeboard. [40] It involved EIGHT OTHER wiki editors (User:Epeefleche, User:AndyTheGrump, User:EvergreenFir, User:Blueboar, User:DrFleischman, User:GRuban, User:Arkon, User:RightCowLeftCoast) and no one took PearlSt82's side. PearlSt82 was combative, refusing to get their points, continued to argue "content" instead of RS, and wasn't interested in concensus. For whatever reason, or for no reason whatsoever, PearlSt82 is rabidly opposed to DogsBite.org, and has been since at least 2015. Which is why I groan when PearlSt82 posts (for the umpteenth time) about trying to get concensus on the issue today, when his opinions and behavior towards THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT hasn't changed in four years despite other editors chiming in.

When is enough enough? When will the disruption end?

Nomopbs (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
This is exactly the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior I was referring to in my initial response. I find this bit: Why these edits? What is he protecting? Does he work for one of the organizations that promotes pit bulls as family pets and pays for research to show they are "no different than any other dog"? particularly telling, as this is the exact same line of thought Dogsbite.org has been criticized for by RS, and is what Nomopbs has objected to, in part calling it libel. In light of this libel accusation on the talk page after the ANI report was filed, I'm a bit concerned by this phrase in Nomopbs' initial ANI filing: PearlSt82's edits continuously bring in contentious material (citations that attack DogsBite.org), writes personal opinion, and adds his own original research (some of which has been the subject of at least two libel reports to Wikipedia) - what do they mean when they say "at least two" reports? How do they arrive at a figure of multiple filed reports, but an indeterminate number? Are they saying that they themselves have filed multiple reports? Or do they know of others that have filed reports? If the latter, how do they know this? PearlSt82 (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The evidence, the proof[edit]

Apparently I have been unable to adequately explain what is going on, because of the esoteric nature of the "content". So today, I undertook research to identify the types and patterns of edits made by PearlSt82, without getting involved in specific content issues. The primary patterns I saw were "revert or remove" and "state critical opinions about DogsBite.org on Talk pages".

Reverts/removals in general:

On PearlSt82's top 9 edited pages,[41] P totaled 286 edit. 163 (57%) were reverts/removals.

This pattern of heavy reverts violates Wikipedia's editor policies about reverts (why, why not, when, and how). In summary, reversions are considered to be hostile, drive away editors, and make editing Wikipedia unpleasant. WP:ONLYREVERT There is a whole slew of wiki guidelines on how better to make changes than to revert, including Alternatives to reversion.

Deliberately seeking out mentions of DogsBite.org in Wikipedia (to remove):

  • One of those 7 removals [49] had been there for 9 months, created on April 18, 2016 [50].
  • On the Fatal dog attacks in the United States page that PearlSt82 had made 20 edits and 13 were reverts/removals, 9 out of 13 were in order to remove DogsBite.org as a citation or when it was mentioned.
  • Three of the reverts on the pit bull page were remarked as being to remove DogsBite.org as a citation.

Talk pages, vilifying DogsBite.org:

Considering the dearth of actual constructive edits, on the other hand the Talk pages are filled with lots of commentary about why this or that should be removed or this or that should be a certain way. According to WP:TALK "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."

  • On the pit bull Talk page, PearlSt82 vilifies DogsBite for the last SIX YEARS: 31 January 2013, 17 February 2014, 20 April 2015 X 3, 25 January 2017, 2 July 2018.
  • The entirety of P's discussion on Talk:Dogsbite.org is critical of DogsBite.org. In fact, the article was created as a criticism piece,[51] and it wasn't until I came along that anyone tried to bring it towards NPOV.

PearlSt82 publishes his opinions of DogsBite.org:

Do you really think someone with these opinions could possibly maintain any sense of NPOV while editing the Dogsbite.org article?

  • "Dogsbite.org is a anti-Pit bull, pro-Breed Specific Legislation advocacy group. They have a vested interest in skewing statistics regarding dog bite fatalities in order to make pit bulls look more dangerous than they are" [52]
  • "I disagree that my views on dogsbite.org is personal opinion. It is a fact dogsbite.org is not peer reviewed. It is a fact that it is self published. It is a fact that Colleen Lynn, the sole operator of dogsbite.org has no credentials in veterinary science, animal behavior or other related matters that would make her reliable for quoting these kinds of statistics from. It is also fact that HuffPo wrote an article which I quoted above that labels Lynn and Merritt Clifton as academic frauds. If you look at the data on Lynn's website, its mostly circular citations with Merritt Clifton." [53]
  • "Yes, what DBO is doing here is tabulating their own research based on the media reports they've surveyed." [54]
  • "My labeling of dogsbite.org as fringe is absolutely NOT POV." [55]
  • "... Lynn's lack of credentials, stating Colleen Lynn is a menace; she's a web designer who was once bitten by a dog, and has been on a vicious campaign to eliminate the pit bull type ever since. Still, she makes no pretense to academic credibility." [56]
  • "... a fringe and discredited organization like dogsbite.org" [57]
  • "a pro-BSL site which intentionally skews dog bite fatality statistics" [58]
  • "dogsbite.org ... is a self published source run by non-veterinary professionals who intentionally skew statistics." [59]
  • "... these statistics are impossible to outline with any degree of certainty" [60]
  • "their conclusions are refuted by reputable organizations" [61]
  • "Other organizations do not make such statistics, because such information is unknowable." [62]
  • "Colleen Lynn and Merrit Clifton have no professional or academic experience in animal behavior, statistics and epidemology, Clifton intentionally misrepresents his academic credentials, and DogsBite.org and Clifton are given false balance by many media outlets as their opinion carrying the same weight as the CDC and AVMA" [63]
  • "... and its citation of unreliable and biased sources such as dogsbite.org" [64]
  • "How is this not a fringe organization?" [65]
  • "I think this is absolutely not reliable information. Dogsbite.org is a self published source which has been known to skew its statistics. It is run by a single person, Colleen Lynn, who has no professional experience in animal behavior. It is not peer reviewed. All of their dog bite statistics come from media reports" [66]
  • "How would we approach without running afoul of NPOV and BLP when discussing Lynn?" [67]

Does anyone still think the author of the above statements could possibly edit the Dogsbite.org article with a neutral point of view? I can only conclude that this person must have some sort of vested interest. No one would spend six years making absolutely sure that nothing is ever said positive about a single small organization unless they saw themselves as some sort of competitor (like National Canine Research Council) or they work for one of the large pit bull advocacy organizations such as Animal Farm Foundation, Best Friends Animal Society, etc. Not even someone with a personal grudge against Lynn could cook up the lengthy and detailed arguments against her work like PearlSt82 has done. The hours and weeks P must have spent on this over the years. Oh my! (And I had to go get myself sucked into the quicksand of this rivalry. Beating myself up now for getting involved.)

To sum it up:

I accidentally encountered PearlSt82 when I tried to edit the Dogsbite.org article. Working with, or around, PearlSt82 has been excruciating. Apparently I could not adequately explain to others what was going on. I hope that this summary of P's edits has sufficiently shown that P has been engaged in DISRUPTIVE EDITING for a very long time, and specifically on the subject of DogsBite.org — though not disruptive exclusively towards DogsBite, but also as a general pattern of his type of editing. Considering P's documented focused attacks on the target DogsBite for an extended period of time (six years) without break, PearlSt82 should be banned or blocked from editing the Dogsbite.org article.

Nomopbs (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This strikes me as a WP:STICK wall of text, misunderstanding policy and mischaracterizing my edits. I again strongly disagree that any of my edits constitute as being disruptive. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with PearlSt82. This is a true wall of text, and this horse feels pretty well flogged. I did go through however and read this large block of text. While reverting shouldn't be the main way of editing, many editors still do revert a great deal. Why you brought up Pearls non-dog edits seems to be confusing the issue. Deliberately removing DogsBites mentions? Thats no crime, and in fact I support Pearl's edits in that area: per WP:BLOGS, a website like DogsBite is hardly a reliable source. On talk pages: reading through the talk page, I see no egregious problems. If you'd like to provide specific diffs or sections, please do. I hardly find evidence of them "villifying" DogsBite. And from what I can see, they don't seem wildly or unfairly prejudiced against DogsBite. They claim that its a fringe source, and I think they may be right. Its certainly not a reliable source. Perhaps that issue would be better raised at the RS noticeboard. Their view that DogsBite isn't reliable seems backed, or at least not just their opinion.
At this point, I see that there is a clear issue between PearlSt82 and Nomopbs. Perhaps an WP:IBAN is in order? Otherwise, I say that Nomopbs should probably step back from Dog articles (with a topic ban if necessary). PearlSt82 could also step back, but their edits do not seem overly problematic to me. That, or per WP:STICK, this horse is well and truly flogged, you should both accept that this thing is over, and maybe stop editing the article and go find another article to work on. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@CaptainEek: That you think "heavy on the reverting" is okay as an editor's pattern of activity shows a weak grasp of the wiki guidelines about reverting and how repetitious and heavy-handed reversions do represent disruptive editing. Nomopbs (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nomopbs: I didn't say that. I agree that reverting should not be the main way of editing, and I would warn PearlSt82 to familiarize themselves with the ins and outs of reversion, and to revert only when necessary. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
You cannot simply say that because >X% of a user's edits are reverts, they're being disruptive. You need to consider the actual content of their reverts. For example, you could have an editor who chooses to do nothing but watch for vandalism and revert it. Their article-space edits could be 100% reverts, and yet, their contributions to the encyclopedia would be very positive. Colin M (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Comments: I see a lot of smoke but no fire.
  • That someone's edits are largely reverts is not a problem per se, especially on troll magnet pages like Roosh V.
  • The removal a non-RS websites used as sources is a positive thing, not something we should chastise Pearl for.
  • A discussion about HuffPo from 4 years ago seems reaching. I'm sure that i