Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Wopr[edit]

(non-admin closure) Soapboxing user (Wopr) indeffed by Bbb23Nosebagbear (talk) 17:38, 10 July 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 am concerned about this users edits, namely their contributions which appear to be soapboxing. As it is their userpage amounts to WP:UPNOT as it is nothing but ranting. I fully respect other's political views, but this editor seems intent on shoving his WP:POV into other's faces. [1] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I deleted the userpage and blocked the user as NOTHERE, which is a bit of an understatement.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:19, 10 July 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.

Utsav kapadiya[edit]

CU blocked--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 11 July 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.

Utsav kapadiya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hi, This user has 20+ warnings on his talk page, which did not seem to have any effect. Most contributions are biographies of non notable people, most stubs without any reliable reference. In addition, he has removed tags after being told not to do so: [2], [3]. All uploads on Commons are copyright violations, now deleted. In bref, massive violations of WP:BLP. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:26, 11 July 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.

Shinealittlelight with egregious personal attacks, serious WP:IDHT at Antifa (United States)[edit]

The Antifa (United States) article is regularly a hot zone of dispute, particularly whenever there's a conflict between antifascists and right-wing extremists in the streets of battlegrounds such as Portland. This week has been a week like that. This time, these disputes have led to an editor (Shinealittlelight) accusing another (Tsumikiria) of sponsoring political violence. Shinealittlelight is casting aspersions, citing WP:NOT on the basis of a userpage infobox alone, failing to WP:AGF and then, when repeatedly cautioned by multiple editors, evincing astounding levels of WP:IDHT, telling the concerned editors that their claims that another editor shouldn't edit articles on antifascism because "they support political action by any means necessary, including violence" don't constitute a personal attack. Diffs with description below.

Shinealittlelight calls attention to Tsumikiria's antifa support infobox [4] Shinealittlelight claims this equates to a CoI and cites WP:NOT with the claim that it means Tsumikiria will attempt to achieve political goals by any means necessary [5] After being challenged over their statement, Shinealittlelight doubles down on WP:NOT claims, again based only on a user page infobox [6] After being asked to retract their personal attacks, Shinealittlelight refuses [7] Shinealittlelight cautioned by me, Doug Weller and Objective3000 at user talk where we ensure they're aware that their personal attacks, on a page under discretionary sanctions, would likely lead to a block, and we caution them to strike through their statements. They reply with further personal attacks against Tsumikiria while simultaneously denying that the statements are personal attacks. [8]

Both Shinealittlelight and Tsumikiria will be informed of this discussion momentarily. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

They have both now been notified. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The editor calls another editor a supporter of Antifa because that editor has a user box on their page mentioning they are a supporter. This of course is cause for suspecting conflicted editing. So what is the problem? Where is the diff where the editor, as per you, has purportedly said, "they support political action by any means necessary, including violence". Specifically, where is the diff which shows they said "including violence". On the contrary, I see your edits like this one where you end up calling someone a "racist blogger" Well, if you want to post rubbish at ANI, better be prepared to back up your statements. I'll await your reply before proceeding to either warn you or block you or to commend you and eat my words. Lourdes 15:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
[9] Here's where they make specific reference to support of violence. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
And this dif, previously provided, is, I think, the first reference to "by any means necessary" which they clarified includes support of violence. [10] - as for my Ngo comments - they were not directed at any Wikipedia editor. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I did not say that support of antifa equates to a CoI but only that it raises concern, just as vocal support of the RNC would raise concern about an editor editing the article on RNC. I did not say that Tsumikiria will attempt to achieve political goals by any means necessary, but that the user's support of Antifa means that the user believes that achieving political goals by any means necessary is permissible in the present situation. Believing something is permissible is not the same as intending to do it. I do believe that support of Antifa tends to undermine the ability of other editors to assume you're here to follow the rules and build an encyclopedia (when it comes to political issues). I do not regard this point as a personal attack. If I believed what Antifa supporters believe--that the political situation has become so dire that violence is called for--I would not be here to build an encyclopedia. It would be the reasonable consequence of my assessment of how dire the situation had become. I thought that other editors should know that this editor was a supporter of Antifa for the reason I mentioned. If that earns me a ban, then so be it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • There does seem to be a lot of WP:ADVOCACY issues on that page. I would not go so far as to say a COI issue but something to keep an eye on. People supporting a cause probably should not be editing pages about it or closely related subjects. PackMecEng (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
    Should a women editor, who supports women's cause and rights, edit Women's suffrage? Is that even a question? And has the advocacy happened? Without concrete evidence on external canvassing, recruiting, or paid editing, this is just another attempt to derail the content discussion and discredit the majority of experienced editors whom you happen to disagree with. Tsu*miki* 🌉 16:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
    Generally speaking, Wikipedia maintains WP:NPOV by attracting comments from editors with all kinds of views on a topic, from fanatic support to vocal opposition to true neutral to "just don't care". Saying that only editors with a neutral or negative view on a topic are the only ones who should be allowed to edit it is very perilous to neutrality. Excepting Nazis, they can get the hell out. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
    Should a women editor, who supports women's cause and rights, edit Women's suffrage? That is a straw man argument but I will answer anyway. If they are violating NPOV then yes they should not edit the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
    It's not a straw man argument; in fact it's not an argument at all, it's a question. Specifically, it's a perfectly reasonable request for clarification re the baffling claim you made above, which flies in the face of policy, established consensus and common sense (outlined by Tsumikria and Ivanvector above and by me elsewhere). I'm glad, though, that you're now acknowledging that WP:ADVOCACY and WP:COI are not applicable and that WP:NPOV is the relevant policy. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
    PackMecEng, your argument is absurd. If feminists should not edit articles about feminist topics, perhaps you should not edit articles about motorcycles? After all, you indicate on your userpage that you ride a motorcycle, so by your own argument you cannot edit neutrally about that topic. (This, by the way, is a straw man). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
    Huh what the heck are you talking about? I said If they are violating NPOV then yes they should not edit the subject do you disagree with that? Where did I say feminists should not edit articles about feminist topics? You are being absurd. PackMecEng (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
    Your concession already imply that editors exercising their right to express their views have tendencies to violate our NPOV guidelines, which is already a statement that fly in the face of our civility guidelines. It creates unwarranted suspection defeating the purpose of the project. Such accusations much be served with firm evidence in the form of diffs and posted on noticeboards like this one. I expect you to retract your statement. Tsu*miki* 🌉 00:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
    With all due respect you are completely mistaken. Please read WP:ADVOCACY as I linked before. I will not be retracting my statement. PackMecEng (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • While I'm not concerned with the blocked IDHT attacks, I'm more concerned with behaviors like this where the majority of editors who disagree over a preposition are casted as "defending terrorists" by a experienced member of the community. Sure, it's one thing that discussions may get heated and one's free to have wild beliefs, it's another thing to cast delusions to derail against other members of the community. And its troubling to see that toxic comments unhelpful to our community get overlooked. Tsu*miki* 🌉 16:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's "policy" on editors expressing political views on their userpages is largely - and unfortunately in my view - absent. However, if you are going to include them, especially controversial ones, you should not be surprised if that results in some of comments made here, whether they are justified or not.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I know that, which is why i buried them under entertainment userboxes. And more ridiculous forms of this discussion happened before, so I'm not too concerned either. I'm comfortable being the "disdain to conceal my views and aims" type. Tsu*miki* 🌉 17:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I personally prefer to be transparent about my POV. Truly neutral people don't exist. We may (as I most certainly do) see value in a neutral body of knowledge such as Wikipedia. But that will only arise due to the dialectic process between editors of various POVs coming into contact. As such, asking editors not to edit articles on politcal systems, practices or ideologies just because they have strong opinions on them is actually counter to the objective of WP:NPOV. Of course, this is prefaced by WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS because once you start advocating genocide, your opinion is no longer of value to anyone. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Some would argue that starting the line at 'advocating genocide' is quite a bit too late. Arkon (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Well yeah, but I think even this notoriously fractuous board can agree that pro-genocide POVs are not of use to the dialectic of Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This thread is confusing as hell. Editor A is blocked because they mention Editor B supports political violence (more accurately supports a group that does so) as a possible COI. Editor B has a userbox stating support for said group (Antifa) that (from the article) states: the label "antifa" should be limited to "those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries,". Seems rather like the normal run of the mill 'Hey, your POV is showing' to me. Arkon (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily on board with the block either, but it should be noted (and a look through Shinealittlelight's contributions to the talk page in question will make clear) that the diff Lourdes provided is only one instance of a broader pattern of commenting on contributors rather than content, which they doubled down on rather than ceasing when the inappropriateness and irrelevance of these comments was pointed out. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Editors must feel free to be themselves, and their personal biases and beliefs must not be used against them by claiming it indicates they edit in a biased manner or have a COI. Only proof, with diffs from actual edits, can be used to make such accusations, and that should be done at the appropriate noticeboard. Discussing and editing are two different things. Expressions of personal belief and bias in discussions and in userspace is allowed, but biased editing is not. Keep that neutral.

Using an editor's affiliations and/or personal beliefs against them is a serious personal attack[1] that rebounds on all editors who express their own points of view in discussions, and such accusations create a chilling effect that would mean the mere holding of a point of view automatically means the editor has a conflict of interest preventing them from editing any related subject. That would never work and such accusations are forbidden personal attacks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources

  1. ^ WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."
Agreed, but just a day or two ago someone called SNAAAAKE!! was indefinitely blocked by an AN report which based a lot of the initial argumention on the fact that he had stated support for Gamergate in Wikipedia. So, obviously there are more accepted "potentially controversial views" and then there are some which will be considered "NOTHERE" by most. However, the explanatory supplement WP:NOTNOTHERE also states that expressing extremely unpopular opinions is allowed in a non-disruptive manner. As for Tsumikiria, I was mostly amused by their description NYT and WaPo's bourgeois journalists and their owner capitalists has always been against progressive movements[11] on RS/N. Showing some old-school colors is fine. --Pudeo (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Pudeo, I'm not familiar with that situation, but there is an area where persistent expressions of a type of personal opinion does come into conflict with policy, and that is advocacy of fringe POV. We don't allow the pushing of POV that are clearly in conflict with RS. (An example would be denial that the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections.) Stating fringe POV and figuring out how to deal with them is okay, but pushing them, as in advocating belief in them, is not allowed. When someone advocates fringe POV, a warning should be enough. If they keep doing it, then sanctions come into play. If those POV affect their editing they need some stronger advice. Since such personal views are not a one-time thing, topic bans may be appropriate. So expressions of certain types of POV, as well as editing in accordance with those POV, is problematic. Does that make sense? (I'm sure that could be worded better.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Pudeo, I just read over that entire discussion, and the old HH and Niemti pages, and you are seriously misrepresenting the case: it is not built on their GG support. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps not the block that resulted, but the AN report rhetorically is. The third paragraph is about his support for Gamergate and once that is established as a background, his "narrow worldview" or "anti-women" views are then referenced several times. I think it it's clear it was used as a device to establish him as a bad guy, whether it's deserved for a Gamergater or not. BTW I too remember disliking "HanzoHattori" in Russian military topics back when I registered. --Pudeo (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • BullRangifer hits the nail on the head. This is an academic project. Personal commentary is prohibited. It is never acceptable to discredit someone solely based on beliefs expressed on their personal user page. Everyone has beliefs, and often times conflicting beliefs are the direct cause of opposing perspectives in a content setting. The relative morality or correctness of opposing views is irrelevant, we focus on content on objective scholarly standards, period. Support for or opposition to a subject is not the same thing as a COI, period. Also, examining Pudeo's case study, it's exceedingly clear that SNAKE was not banned due to his ideology, but for an extreme problem with personal attacks and incivility going back over a decade, as well as actual POV-pushing. There is the caveat that the more extreme a user's views, the less they will be tolerated by the community, but that's probably more of an inherent aspect of social psychology than a hard rule. Gamergate-sympathy expressed on one's user page is, in theory, not going to get you banned. But when you declare yourself to be a proud harasser of women, and you're obviously pushing misogyny in your editing, then yeah, it's worth a mention, and you can't really claim you're being persecuted for "controversial views". ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    While slips are human and happen and an attack against a particular editor is different, I think that the spirit also expands to more general statements on article talk pages like "You guys are obviously leftists", or "Since you are creationists..." and even "We don't discard a source because you don't like it" versus concentrating on sources, assessing their reliability, seeking consensus and working on content... —PaleoNeonate – 23:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Obviously we all have opinions. (I have two or three.) Personally, I looked up this German wallpaper hanger with a toothbrush mustache who caused a kerfuffle 80 years back, and don’t much like him, even if he does like dogs. Doesn’t mean I can’t edit his article. Might be easier if editors didn’t add their beliefs to their user pages. But, unless they nail a list of 95 grievances onto the door of a chapel; we should be able to handle it without declaring them unfit to edit certain articles. In any case it’s all too simple: Attack the argument, not the editor. OTOH, if you insist that red traffic lights mean go; there’s a problem. O3000 (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
This isn't an issue from "80 years back". This is a wedge issue that is currently active . Bus stop (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
As someone recently said relating to this issue; a pa is a pa is a pa. And your response on the UTP that I shouldn't have responded to a question[12] is based on no guidelines. The editor has been blocked, the block has expired, and the editor says they understand. We all make mistakes in early days. Time to close this. O3000 (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
The issue of Antifa (United States) is a currently active hot-button issue. I'm restating that in case I was unclear in my previous post. By way of contrast you are talking about a "German wallpaper hanger with a toothbrush mustache who caused a kerfuffle 80 years back". Bus stop (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
So restate it in a new thread somewhere. Let us leave the subject of this AN/I thread alone. When you get to a certain age, everything is RECENTISM. Face-smile.svg O3000 (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Objective3000—I am not so much concerned with your age. I am concerned that you are comparing apples to oranges. Why are you wasting our time by rambling on about German wallpaper hanger with toothbrush mustache? Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - An MfD has been started on these antifascist userboxes. Above discussion participants may be interested in joining this relevant discussion as well. Tsu*miki* 🌉 04:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Tsumikiria, are Fascist and Nazi userboxes forbidden? They are arguably much worse, at least for Americans, as Americans not only took the same side as Antifa, they actually fought a war and killed Nazis, not just protested against them in the streets. (I am not justifying their violence in the streets, just their opposition to neo-nazis, fascists, and anti-democracy forces. The two sides are not equal. There are not "good people" on both sides.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @BullRangifer: No, I didn't start that MfD. I'm just disappointed that participants of this discussion weren't informed of the MfD, which is clearly inspired by this ANI discussion. Tsu*miki* 🌉 15:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Another Hateful edit summary left[edit]

Loginnigol still hasn't notified Govvy properly. Govvy undid Loginnigol's addition of arguably disruptive templates to Tottenham Hotspur F.C., calling Loginnigol a "troll" in the edit summary. When Loginnigol warned Govvy about it on Govvy's Talk page, Govvy undid the warning, again calling Loginnigol a troll. Loginnigol, if you're going to post to ANI, follow the instructions at the top of this page. Govvy, don't call other editors trolls or you risk being blocked for personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 10 July 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.

In this article, a poster named user:Govvy has left an unprovoked incendiary personal attack in an edit summary today in response to a single edit. Would you remove it (not the edit but the edit summery itself) please? Thank you. --Loginnigol 15:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Loginnigol: You haven't notified the other user as you are required to do. I won't do it for you. Also, WP:SIGN your posts properly so there are links to your userpage and your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Loginnigol: It would have been better if you had first discussed your complaint on the article's- or the user's talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Technically WP:SIGLINK only requires a link to one of the user page, user talk page or contribs page. But a link to the user page and user talk page when the user page isn't empty is the norm and in any case no link is a definite no-no. Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, @Fowler&fowler:, @Nil Einne: It is done but the poster removed it from his talk page. --Loginnigol


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.
@Bbb23:, done according to ANI. --Loginnigol

Russian bots?[edit]

Hello, can you see the edits of this person Ermenrich. He's written on his talkpage that he is German, but most of his edits on Wikipedia are connected to Russia and Russian-Ukrainian war, Crimean crysis and so on. See for example these edits [13], [14], [15], [16]. I think that the other edits that are not related to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict are being made for a close-up. I ask you, administrators, to carefully consider this request and evaluate the actions of the participant. I am not very experienced in Wikipedia and my level of English is not too high to describe everything fully and accurately, so excuse me. --Devlet Geray (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This is pretty laughable. Most of my edits are related to medieval and classical history and literature. If anything this post just shows how much pro-Tartar anti-Russian POV Devlet Geray has. He has repeated tried to remove any mention that the Crimean Tatars were involved in the slave trade, in spite of it being reliably sourced. His entire talkpage is covered with warnings templates about edit warring for precisely this reason, and he's repeatedly accused me and other users of being "Russian bots".--Ermenrich (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • my talkpage is covered by your warnings --Devlet Geray (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, because I WP:Assume good faith and am attempting to get you to stop your disruptive behavior.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, please, check these people (especially their edit-history):

--Devlet Geray (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't see any wrongdoing by Ermenrich in the diffs provided by Devlet Geray, as they appear to just be switching the spelling of "Kyiv/Kiev" and other similarly contentious names. I'm not up to date on the latest debates on how MOS should handle the names of Ukrainian locations, but given the title of the page Kiev I'd take a stab and say that not only were Ermenrich's edits not POV-pushing (or any other sort of violation), they're actually the correct edits to make in order to preserve consistent spelling. If I were to be as charitable as possible to Devlet Geray, this seems like a content dispute at most, which should be addressed at a relevant talk page before being escalated to this noticeboard––I see no evidence that this has been done. I haven't looked at the other editors accused (please provide diffs if you're going to make accusations against someone diffs were provided after I wrote this), but given how this was opened I really don't think there's much to do here unless someone wants to check for WP:BOOMERANG also, calling another editor a bot is a laughable accusation. I wish we could have bots who could be as constructive as Ermenrich, but we are years if not decades away from that sort of technology. signed, Rosguill talk 22:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC) 22:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    Ok, having reviewed the extra diffs...what exactly is the accusation here? The edits seem reasonably sourced, neutrally worded, and if anything paint Russia in a negative light. I would say that the IP does look a bit suspicious, although I would note that its edits appear to have preceded Ermenrich's involvement on that page. signed, Rosguill talk 22:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I would recommend getting acquainted with their edit-history better and then drawing conclusions about whether they work for the Russian government or not. They can make million neutral edits, but one totally pro-Russian, and nobody will pay attention to it. --Devlet Geray (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Devlet, by all appearances you are simply accusing other editors of wrongdoing for disagreeing with you. Evidence of common interest or even focused interest is not evidence of misbehavior. In fact, your evidence is so inadequate that this ANI thread is a borderline personal attack. I strongly recommend that you simply drop this matter. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, you don't have to agree with me, but I'll make this much clear: If you file another complaint that is this bereft of evidence, I will block you. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Devlet Geray has been fairly disruptive for a while now. See these repeated pages moves without any discussion and despite being reverted by various users [25], [26], [27], and accusations against Srnec for restoring sourced information [28], [29]. See also his repeated insertion of the same text to Assassination of Boris Nemtsov [30], [31], [32]. This latest bout of accusations started after he tried to remove the same sourced information again at Crimean Tartars [33] and I reverted him, and he reverted me [34] and he, without any discussion, tried to move Russo-Crimean Wars to Crimean Russian Wars [35], which I reverted. I've tried to reason with him, but at this point I honestly think he should be sanctioned. He has a major problem with POV and does not seem to be able to work collaboratively.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a plausible connection can be established from behavioral evidence, and I doubt a CU will use their tools to check. This looks like a contentious topic; I would expect multiple people to appear making similar edits. Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The edits sited in the OP are absolutely correct, we indeed use Kiev and not Kyiv, which is promoted by the Ukrainian government.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    On the other hand, this edit by Devlet Geray was absolutely not ok.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    I have given Devlet Geray a DS alert.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    And I am afraid this is becoming disruptive [56]--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Nicoljaus is WP:NOTLISTENING over 2 weeks[edit]

The RfC was only launched two days ago — indeed, you haven't really given it a fair chance to run its course yet. The failure on DRN is on Miki Filigranski. They are expected to at least check in to see what is happening and drop a note about when they could be available. If Robert McClenon and the other DRN volunteers have the patience, maybe give it another go. But, as mentioned on my own talk page, wasting administrative resources (and forum shopping also via AN3) on a content dispute was the wrong call. More patience and dispute resolution attempted in good faith is what's needed at this stage. El_C 01:56, 11 July 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.

The editor, since started the discussion Talk:Rusyns#White Croats on 26 June, mostly transferred to Talk:White Croats#Big mistification? since 8 July, is completely refusing to get the point for over 2 weeks about how the articles are titled (WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and specifically WP:COMMONNAME), trying to change the meaning of the term "White Croats", now disruptively edit warring (revision history) to change the title, scope and structure of the article White Croats itself which had from the beginning (!), ignoring the editor's remark i.e. discussion and without any previous consensus. The editor lacks competence in the topic because of which arise misunderstandings and misinterpretations which lead to wrong conclusions and edits. Part of the edit (a note was included as an intermediate solution but again ignored because refutes to get the point, see article & talk page revision history). The editor does not have the patience to deal with DRN and RfC. This is the moment when per WP:NOTLISTENING; "If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The editor does not have the patience to deal with DRN --Closed. The other editor, User:Miki Filigranski, has not responded in 72 hours.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The editor continues to provoke and refuse to get the point even in this case as explained several times to them that was not active in the specific days and could not respond, neither was notified the DRN continued after few days. Editor ignored the moderators closing remarks: Resume discussion on the article talk page. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. Any content disputes can be resolved by Request for Comments.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Also reported at WP:AN/EW because of edit warring.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I found in the Lead of the White Croats article references to books in which there are completely no statements that they should support. Raised this question, received a portion of the usual rudeness without any argumentation. I tried to fix article using correct references to verifiable and reliable sources and received blank reverts. For example, Miki returned a ref to the book that on the pages 295, 319 should confirm the sentence "In 1861, in the statistical data about population in Volhynia governorship released by Mikhail Lebedkin, were counted Horvati with 17,228 people". There is such a situation that either I am engaged in disruptive behavior, and on these pages something is said about "17,228 Horvati" or Miki, who returned this ref.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The editor does not understand the topic at all, is wasting another editor time in now a pointless discussion because is refusing to get the point for over 2 weeks and then wonders why are getting the "portion of rudeness"? What is even more incredible is the fact the editor is trying to support their "disruptive behavior" because of content i.e. their POV on content, again ignoring moderator's advice.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
No need for so many words, just show "17,228 Horvati" in the ref you returned. --Nicoljaus (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
What that reference has anything to do with the topic? Why do you detour from the topic? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking at the linked discussion, I don't see not listening, I see two editors engaged in a content dispute. I also see that there is an ongoing RfC to attempt to (at least partially) resolve this dispute. I would suggest that both editors allow the RfC to run its course, refrain from edit warring, and hopefully the RfC will resolve the content dispute at hand. For future reference, an example of not listening would be if the RfC was closed one way, and then an editor continued to revert to a version contrary to the closing consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 23:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Rosguill: this is not a mere content dispute. The editor is trying to change the article title, scope, structure of the article (even meaning of the scholarship term "White Croats"), for which exist WP:SILENCE consensus since the beginning, while the editor is tediously discussing and edit warring ignoring the remark of another editor for over 2 weeks, without patience to wait for any consensus, was it via DR or RfC. Also, anyone reviewing this case, please revert the current revision to old before the edit warring started ([57]) because the current does not have consensus and cannot be reverted by editors in question due to 3RR.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
      Miki Filigranski, setting aside the irony of asking someone to WP:LISTEN to WP:SILENCE, silence is the weakest form of consensus (per SILENCE). An editor is within their rights to make BOLD edits against a silent consensus, although it is sometimes inadvisable as it will result in scenarios like the one that you are in right now. article title, scope, structure are all content, hence disputes about them are content disputes.
      While the edit warring is bad, I don't see Nicoljaus ignoring you, they've engaged pretty heavily on the talk page, and even opened a DRN case which you declined to participate in, for whatever reason. They have not been swayed by your arguments, and you have not been swayed by theirs, which is within both of your rights as editors. The civil thing to do at this point is to stop edit warring, request outside input in resolving the content disputes at the affected articles (through RFC, DRN, or at a relevant WikiProject talk page), and then edit in keeping with the consensus that results from that discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 00:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I haven't tried to research the details of the content dispute. However, it was User:Nicoljaus who requested moderated dispute resolution at DRN. I tried briefly to start moderated discussion by asking each party to make a statement. As noted, User:Miki Filigranski didn't respond in 72 hours, and I closed the dispute. Discussion at DRN is voluntary, but it appears that MF is twisting the facts when they say: "The editor does not have the patience to deal with DRN and RfC." They tried DRN. If the parties want to resolve this as a content dispute, I still suggest RFC. But it looked to me like a case of User:Miki Filigranski not listening. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 11 July 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.
Brigham Young, prominent bigamist-EEng
Big mistifcaton-EEng

Edit made purely with the intent of an insult in the edit summary.[edit]

This edit summary over at Britney Spears: "Chaheel Riens I don't give a fuck to you.Ok?Mother Fucker."

The edit seems to have been made purely for the purpose of leaving the edit summary, as they then removed the unnecessary period straight away here.

Presumably a response to my correcting their linking to the wrong S&M article. The contentious topic is whether the Britney remix of S&M is enough of a Britney song to count as "her" number one. I'm of the opinion that it doesn't, but after noting the calendar of event self-reverted and started conversation on the talk page. Pretty sure this edit summary is in a different league to my own.

Editor informed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I blocked that editor for 24 hours. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. As a personal note I'll reconsider my own edit summaries, but as stated above - that was beyond my own. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

User who's edits are only adding flags[edit]

Huy Victory (talk · contribs) is only doing edits that consist in the addition of flags to infobox. See his ten last contributions:

He has been warned several times from July 2018 to July 2019, by @FOX 52: and me.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I've given them one final absolute warning that if they make any edit that violates MOS:FLAG they will be blocked. Don't know how I can be clearer. If this happens, let me know and I'll block. Canterbury Tail talk 21:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
This is the same pattern as a blocked sockdrawer from last year that was also spamming flags, many of them copyvio, and other copyvio images. They had the same WP:RADAR behavior of ignoring all warnings, and zero talk page responses. Every time we'd block them, they'd lay low for a bit then create another sock and continue. Looking back through the history now to see who they were. - CorbieV 22:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Found them. The main indef-blocked sockdrawers were
I see others were added later, including sleeper accounts that may have been the sockmasters. - CorbieV 22:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
If you can see the deleted contribs here, this is the sock account in particular that was uploading and inserting flags and similar images (tribal seals): Higher Ground 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - CorbieV 22:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Emmy Expert doesn't add flags to articles. He changes images on awards articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Emmy came up in the conversation, as there were some overlaps in behavior, but yes, should probably be ruled out here as we eventually sorted them into two drawers. It was the two socks of Chitt, and mostly Higher Ground, that did the flags. Thanks. I'll strike Emmy. - CorbieV 23:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not convinced they're the same person. The editor in question on this thread is solely interested in military history and weapons. They're not uploading new images, they're not linking to copyrighted items, they're overlinking and adding flags where policy dictates they shouldn't be. Canterbury Tail talk 02:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

COI user issues legal threat[edit]

Greetings! Adij94 (talk · contribs) has subtly declared his conflict of interest vis-a-vis the Cathedral and John Connon School, which he refers to as "the school's official page" and has issued a legal threat against Roxy the dog (talk · contribs), promising to track her down via IP address.

North East England, near Durham. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kajol Aikat[edit]

NRP = thorough.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 12 July 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.

Can someone please have a look at this AFD? There are quite a few sock puppets (or meat puppets). Some appear to be altering other editor's comments. Peacock (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

On the plus side, they are all so obviously spurious that no closer will have trouble discounting them. Makes the page harder to read though... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Socks blocked, discussion closed, article deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:47, 12 July 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.

Malayasian IP attacks Singaporeans[edit]

See archived link at wp:ANI: [58]

The same people are attacked again. Please deal with it. Gundam5447 (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I blocked these three IPs, but if some can identify and block the range, it would help--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I took a look at the IPv6 addresses, and the network CIDR is a 2001:D08::/32, which is wayyyy too wide to comfortably block without causing collateral damage. However, calculating a narrower range using the two IPv6 addresses listed here (as well as the list of IPv6 addresses from the archived ANI discussion) I get a range of 2001:D08:1000::/36, which looks much better to me. I've gone ahead and applied a block to this range, but added an ACC ignore comment, as the range is still very wide. I don't see a connection between the two IPv4 addresses listed here, so I left things be with those two users. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I also confirmed the act of impersonation, please deal with it. Gundam5447 (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

See my comment above. I've applied a two-week block to the IPv6 range. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Dunwoody, GA[edit]

A user has, over the last few days, been changing the location of the Perimeter Mall, Perimeter Center and Dunwoody station from Dunwoody, Georgia to Sandy Springs, Georgia. They have used two IPs (99.153.141.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 69.180.48.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) and have now created a user account and are making the same edits there (see [59] and [60]). This despite many warnings on all three talk pages. I have provided sources for these locations being officially in Dunwoody. This is not straightforward vandalism, but does appear to me to be disruptive editing, so I have brought it here rather than WP:AIV. Could an uninvolved admin take a look? Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Even with the IP edits, this is clearly a brand new editor. Perhaps, Railfan23, you should attempt to engage them in actual discussion, rather than repeatedly templating them? Note there is nothing newer on the mall's talk page than 2007 and nothing newer than 2017 on the train stations. John from Idegon (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I've added temporary semi protection to the Perimeter Mall and Perimeter Center articles. I agree with John from Idegon in that custom messages and attempts to help educate the user in good faith should be attempted. The protection I've applied should give you some time to help the new user. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, both. I've started a discussion at Talk:Perimeter Mall, and have left a note on User talk:DellComputersXP offering to copy their reply to the article talk page. I think it is more useful to have the discussion on the article talk page, if possible. Railfan23 (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior by editor Herostratus on Murder of Seth Rich & associated talk page[edit]

A content dispute that the IP/OP says they resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 12 July 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.

Herostratus made three edits to the Murder of Seth Rich page on July 9, 2019 to add an article published the same day by Michael Isikoff of Yahoo! News discussing a possible Russian government origin of the conspiracy theory that he was murdered by the DNC in retaliation for supposedly leaking e-mails to Wikileaks. The source was added to two sections. One was it's own paragraph near the end of the page. The second was a change of the "Conspiracy Theory - Origins" paragraph to "Russian Origins", stating matter of factly that the conspiracy theory had been manufactured by the Russian government. I felt this added undue weight to a recently published article by an author who had previously published articles that later turned out to be based on incorrect information from anonymous sources and a sensationalist partisan book about the contentious Trump issue. Since I am not a regular Wiki editor, I added these concerns to the talk page rather than making edits on my own.

Herostratus responded by accusing me of being a Russian agent in a short reply. The following day he added a long winding response about which particular author would be more pleasing to me personally that ended with a kind of verbal shrug that readers should be familiar with the source's author and decide on their own whether to disregard the source as a "hack journalist." Their arguments in this reply did not seem to me to have any particular central thesis. I replied addressing some of what appears to be their concerns, reiterating my concerns and urging that the article should not be given prominence until more sources discussing the claim were available to corroborate the claim of Russian origin. Another user, Geogene, noted that a Washington Post article had since been published casting doubt on the Isikoff claims. Herostratus responded to my post and Geogene's with a weird rant. He said article sources do not need corroboration, talked about their belief that the unpopularity of Donald Trump is practically universal, defended the use of bias, and said the Russian 'the "Russia collusion conspiracy theory". Is that something like the "Earth is round conspiracy theory"?' He also accused me of being a third person who started a different talk page discussion (this is partially my fault, I thought I had a static IP at my work computer, but apparently I do not).

I found this behavior on the talk page to be inappropriate and rude. It is because of things like this that I have no desire to regularly edit wikipedia or register here and have perhaps a dozen times in my life added a comment to a talk page. I am concerned his edits to the Murder of Seth Rich page itself were not in the spirit of Wikipedia and when questioned on the appropriateness of their comment, Herostratus discourage participation in Wikipedia, cast aspersions of people questioning them, and asserted bizarre claims that bias and unreliable information were suitable for publication on Wikipedia. I do not know the appropriate procedures here, so I leave it in your hands to take appropriate action with this uncouth editor.

I believe I resolved the matter of the edits to the Seth Rich page by starting a motion asking editors to vote on whether or not to revert Herostratus' edits and replace them with information from the WaPo Geogene posted to the talk page.2603:3004:6B6:F800:F090:7218:F73C:5CBF (talk) 18:56, 12 July 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:Beyond My Ken re-inserting incorrect categories[edit]

Already being discussed at WT:CFD. No need to duplicate. El_C 05:02, 12 July 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 was a recent discussion on categories of whether critics of Islam should be further sub-divided based on religion or philosophy. The result was to purge categories where the critism of Islam was not relevant, per WP:DEFINING. I recently started removing Category:Secular critics of Islam from articles were there was no proof provided in the article that the subjects criticism was secular based. In the past half an hour User:Beyond My Ken has been reverting my edits, and re-installing the former category which I belive to be inappropriate. When I messaged him on his talk page on the absolute lack of any connection to secularism Tommy Robinson (activist) has see here, she/he responded by saying that since there was no mention of religion in the Robinson article, his critism of Islam was by de fault secular see response, a logic that I find troubling since as an asumption it violates WP:VNT, WP:COP, among other well established Wikipedia guidlines. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Inter&anthro's theory appears to be that if an article says that someone holds a religious belief, any religious belief, to any extent, then their criticism of Islam cannot be "secular". I would say that the category might pertain to (1) Anyone who criticizes Islam who is not a religious leader of some sort, or (2) Anyone whose criticism of Islam is not about the religion, per se, but about Islamic societies. I don't that I&A's theory holds water in any case, but the ambiguity of the category "Secular criticism of Islam" is not a subject of discussion for AN/I. I advised I&A to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion, which he reports that he has done. Why they also chose to go forum shopping and open this discussion as well, I'm not sure. In my opinion, this thread is inappropriate for AN/I and should be archived in favor of the discussion at WT:CFD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 12 July 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.

Cross wiki threats and harassment[edit]

Hi

a banned user in French wikipedia came here to threat me and vowed to forbid me to became administrator on a day, after an administrator suggested me to applie to it.

What could we do? --Panam2014 (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

IP blocked for harassment. Ignore them. Acroterion (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, ignore, Panam2014. But if you dislike having that crap in your page history, let me know and I'll revision delete it. Bishonen | talk 19:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC).

Disruptive behavior from IP 203.109.232.234[edit]

Disruptive editing behavior for days from this New Zealand IP address 203.109.232.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on a large number of lists. He/she persisted in unilaterally deleting massive content from the pages without discussing anything Talk Pages. His/her editing comments involves personal attacks and is a very likely a sock puppet of an Wikipedia account from Australia (which I will not name here for now). Anyone who can help would be appreciated. Minimumbias (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about the sock puppetry or anything like that, but I've left the user a note regarding the use of talk pages and refraining from edit warring in the meantime. Hopefully someone with more knowledge about the possible sock puppetry or use of multiple IP addresses will be able to take a look at this... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Just a quick update that a parallel case on sock puppetry has opened: [61].Thanks. Minimumbias (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Minimumbias - Thanks for the update and for letting us know. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
See also this thread at AN/EW. XOR'easter (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I've closed the SPI with no action. As for the New Zealand IPs, I express no opinion on whether they are the same person, but the idea that they are WP:BKFIP is wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Neurorel pattern of edits VS Ramachandran[edit]

I have been advised at the BLP noticeboard, that WP:ANI is the place to get help with @Neurorel:'s disruptions, starting in 2010, of articles related to VS Ramachandran.

I first went to BLP:N for quick help about this July 6 edit:[62]

Consistently, N removes positive or simply descriptive material, while adding to the talk page, edit summaries, the article itself, and sometimes the article lead, unflattering material. For example:

  • Removing from the bio (many times) the statement that R is director of Center for Brain and Cognition, while using the Talk page to criticize the CBC.
  • Removing and wikilawyering about various honors that RS say R has received (Talk:V._S._Ramachandran gives a good sample of some of N's ideas.)
  • "Shortening" parts of the bio that describe R's research and achievements.[63][64]
  • Expanding material, cherry-picked and cited to primary sources that criticizes R's work. For example, V._S._Ramachandran#Mirror_visual_feedback_/_Mirror_Therapy, on R's most famous work, has one short paragraph about that work followed by a much longer paragraph criticizing--not Ramachandran's work (which is pretty widely honored in RS) --but the efficacy of mirror therapy for phantom limb pain.
Many of N's edits, in isolation, seem harmless. That is how he survived as an editor, nearly a decade--but the sum of edits has cumulative effect. N has successfully driven off several editors who were not regular editors here but wanted to undo the slant he was introducing. By definition, of course, that makes them SPAs. I am not an SPA, and I have worked on many bios of scholarly people. (Thanks to Gerda Arendt for noticing!) 

The diffs below show N's pattern of removing positive or simply descriptive stuff, while trying to add varied unflattering stuff:

Apotemnophelia[65] (removing a paragraph describing evidence from R's group for neurological explanation)
Mirror box[66] (Talk page demonstration of N's using quotes out of context to attack R's work.)
Sleep paralysis[67] (Removing cited work by R's group on neurological basis of sleep paralysis. Note that RS does not agree with N's POV[68])
Tell-Tale Brain[69] (Misrepresents (and does not link to) Brugger's actual review, which N also uses in R's article as criticism of Ramachandran.)

Neurorel has a similar interest Roger Bingham, who has some connection to Ramachandran:

Bingham bio[70]
Science Network[71]New PROD in July 2019 Second PROD (first was rejected in 2013)

I respectfully request that Neurorel be blocked from editing articles related to VS Ramachandran and Roger Bingham. Neurorel is WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The good news is that the current version of the Ramachandran article is in good shape. However, I think it might be a good idea to block further editing for a few months. So the participating editors have arrived at a good set of compromises, in my opinion. The Ramachandran entry is a challenging and frustrating entry to work with. There are two very different versions of Ramachandran's importance and accomplishments. Some editors see Ramachandran in the light of his books, talks and TED talks. Other editors see quite a bit of misinformation that keeps replicating itself when editors cite sources that were incorrect or misleading to begin with. The classic example would be Ramachandran's claim to be the director of the Center for Brain & Cognition at UCSD. There are dozens of references to it. However it is not recognized by the Vice Chancellor for Research as a research center. Wikpedia would call this original research and take the position that Ramachandran's claim to be the director of a research center UCSD can not be challenged on the basis of information that is in the public domain on UCSD websites. This creates a credibility problem for Wikipedia. Some medical schools are now offering courses on how to use Wikipedia. So, can students trust the information from an encyclopedia that cannot fact check the sources it uses. This is a dilemma that Wikipedia should address in some forum.Neurorel (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Neurorel: Multiple RS say R is director of the "Center for Brain and Cognition." No RS says, and the article does not say, and never said, that 1) the CBC is on some official list of the Vice Chancellor for research or 2) R is director a "a research center at UCSD."
I admire the congenial tone that Neurorel can sometimes adopt. And yet this charmingly reasonable fellow, on July 6, added two paragraphs to the Ramachandran article, of which let me quote for you only the first paragraph;

In 2004 Lisa Montgomery murdered Bobby Joe Stinnet. Lisa M. Montgomery, then 36, was convicted of strangling Stinnett from behind and then cutting the woman's unborn child, eight months into gestation, from her womb. Mongomery was convicted and she is now on death row. The trial received global news coverage.

I deleted Neurorel's paragraphs, went to the BLP noticeboard for help or advice, and notified Neurorel on his talk page of that discussion. Then Neurorel warmly thanked me for deleting the paragraphs (2.5 hours after he posted them,) saying that only a technical glitch put them there. I welcome others to discuss useful proposals for the future. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The quote above is a small part of the material that you can find on the entry for Lisa Montgomery. I was considering adding a short section about Ramachandran's appearance at her trial as an expert witness. Ramachandran is one of a small a group of neuroscientists who have testified at criminal trials. I considered this option and then decided that the topic needed its own entry in Wikipedia. So I thought I was closing the page without saving the material. However I got a large rectangle filled with instructions about an editing conflict. I did not want to deal with the instructions so I simply closed the page (assuming nothing would save) I stopped working on the wikipedia article for some time. The first time I was aware that something had been saved was when I received a notification that HouseofChange had deleted the material.Neurorel (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Neurorel: At Talk:V._S._Ramachandran#Two_Areas_That_Are_Not_Mentioned, you proposed adding negative content on two different topics: R's testimony at Montgomery trial and possible use of his early research on vision. (Neither topic was ever a controversy discussed by WP:RS or by the public.) Your description there of R's trial testimony was false and slanderous. That happened July 5.
On July 6 you added two painstakingly edited two paragraphs about the trial to R's article: first by hitting the Edit button, then by creating a new section and pasting your paragraphs into the Edit window, and finally by hitting the Publish button for it. The mysterious wall of text for an edit conflict appears only after you have done all these things. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Propose topic ban from editing articles related to VS Ramachandran[edit]

@Neurorel: has repeatedly added negative material to articles about Ramachandran, Ramachandran's work, and an associate of R named Roger Bingham. At R's bio, Neurorel uses edit summaries and the Talk Page to belittle Ramachandran. Neurorel also removes information, based on RS, about Ramachandran's employment and various honors , wikilawyering on the talk page against them on various grounds. He repeatedly contradicts what RS say while claiming personal information about R and UCSD in a way that suggests possible COI. He is WP:NOTHERE to improve these encyclopedia articles. HouseOfChange (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Support as person proposing the topic ban. HouseOfChange (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Response to HouseofChange complaint and Question about material that is obtained from CBC website[edit]

Again, I think the Ramachandran entry is now satisfactory. I regret the insinuations and accusations that seem to accompany editing disagreements about the Ramachandran entry. It's not the way to build the Wikipedia community spirit.

Here is a question: The first time (ten years ago?) I dialed up the wiki entry on Ramachandran I was attempting to see if there was any information about Roger Bingham, who claimed that he was a research associate at the CBC (on an online bio). In the top paragraph the "Center for Brain and Cognition" was displayed in red. I had seen names and phrases displayed in blue (indicating a wiki entry for them) but I had never seen anything displayed in red. I manged to find my way to an explanation (on the wiki deletion log) which said (as best I can remember) that the entry for the Center for Brain and Cognition had been permanently deleted because it was deemed to be advertising (or words to that effect). The deletion log indicated that the entry could not be reestablished with out permission. This log is, no doubt, archived somewhere. This may explain why there is no entry on Wikipedia for the Center for Brain and Cognition. However Ramachandran does maintain a personal website for the CBC. Unwittingly, editors have used information from it without attempting to fact check the accuracy of the basis of their reference. (said Neurorel)

@Neurorel:'s decade of editing the Ramachandran entry has not made it "satisfactory" as a scientist's bio. R's work is barely covered, but trivial matters such as his consulting work have been included, as well as an account of critical mentions of areas R has worked in, often at greater length than is given to the account of his work. Ramachandran is one of several scientists I photographed at an event in AZ. I did quite a bit of work improving Roger Shepard because our brief encounter made me curious to learn more (People at the event told me that Shepard and Ramachandran were "famous," which is why I took their photos for Wikimedia.) I was shocked at the bad state of Ramachandran's article when I visited it in late June. I started trying to improve it in accordance with Wikipedia policies and MOS. It is frustrating that Neurorel disregards RS if his personal opinion is that RS are wrong. It is frustrating that Neurorel disregards WP:LEAD, but eagerly uses the lead to showcase varied attempts to "expose" Ramachandran and the CBC. I just want to create a good Wikipedia article. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

North Korean POV pushing[edit]

Indeffed. El_C 03:42, 13 July 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.

Incogreader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a single-purpose account dedicated to pushing a pro-North Korean POV. I removed this content (an attempt to contradict a source using a synthesis of references to other Wikipedia articles and google search results) they added to North Korean famine. After looking through their contributions, they mostly seem to be editing North Korea-related articles to push a POV. They nominated Seoul National University Hospital massacre for deletion in June. After the discussion was closed as kept, they made this edit, adding the OR statement "It is worth noting that the cited reports of the massacre are based on accounts from the South Korean military, which for years falsely attributed massacres such as the Bodo League Massacre to the North Korean side". Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Woah. Overtly pro-NK POV, Google searches as sources, willful misrepresentation of sources, and... well, this. He seems to now also be branching into writing about just how awesome Communist China is for Tibet. I'd suggest skipping warnings or even topic ban and go straight to indef for nothere and CIR. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
"Their contributions"? First of all, several points. First, I am one person and everything I've added is sourced. I don't see what's wrong with the information I added to "North Korean famine" and I have started a new discussion to challenge the revert. Do you disagree with the life expectancy data provided by Wikipedia or Google? Is Wikipedia not reliable? I admit it can be biased at times and has problems, but what is the issue with citing it?
Also, I maintain that the disclaimer I added to "Seoul National University Hospital massacre" was necessary. There is no information available in English about the subject and no Korean historians have written about it (or any historians at all, even though it supposedly happened in 1950). If you disagree, please list even just one (preferably contemporary)? The well-respected historian Bruce Cumings has noted that a number of massacres, including Taejon (4-7,000 people) and the Bodo League massacre (one massacre of 200,000 people), once attributed to North Korea by South Korea and official American histories, have since been proven to have been committed by South Korea. The South Korean Truth and Reconciliation Commission has even reviewed many reports of North Korean massacres and come to the same result. The only sources for the "Seoul National University Hospital massacre" are from right-wing newspapers in South Korea based on reports from the South Korean military and a plaque/report from that hospital dating back to 1963. And as noted, not a single historian has written about it. All massacres attributed to North Korea by South Korea in the past need to be re-examined. I note that on the Talk page another user has questioned reliability as well.
What is the "misrepresentation" of sources from "North_Korean abductions of South Koreans"? A commission led by the South Korean prime minister (see https://books.google.com/books?id=DT4yAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=%22wartime+abductees%22+%22korean+war%22&source=bl&ots=tGOD8oGIG5&sig=ACfU3U0MScKbsyyiGx6xXxJHfHEuafOXNA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1kIC5zd_iAhUmiFQKHZ5ZB1I4ChDoATAJegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=%22wartime%20abductees%22%20%22korean%20war%22&f=false - quote: "In August 2011, the Korean War Abductees Fact-Finding Commission (6.25 chonjaeng nappuk chinsang kyumyong wiwonhoe) led by the prime minister said it could confirm 55 cases", p. 80) claims there were 55 abductions during the war, not the tens of thousands claimed in the article.
What is the issue about trying to bring neutrality to articles on North Korea (or for that matter, Tibet)? There is a lot of pro-South propaganda and unsourced anti-North Korean POV material, as well as lots of material on Tibet from biased sources that are anti-Chinese. Often it remains on Wikipedia for years without anyone to correct it or balance it out. I have not pushed a pro-North Korean or pro-China view, but rather added sourced information that balances (or balanced, prior to reverts, whatever the case may be) the articles out (I would note that other users have noticed issues with the articles on both Tibet and some on North Korea). If I had written, for example, information about how the life expectancy in North Korea had fallen or that it was lower than other countries I doubt we would be having this discussion. But, as it turns out, it was actually higher than other countries with similar or even higher GDPs (such as Cambodia and India). I also would note that, before today, I had not received any complaints here or rarely on the Talk pages. Incogreader (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
"First, I am one person and everything I've added is sourced. " The English language allows the use of "their" as a singular. For example: Someone makes edits about how awesome North Korea is, and a reasonable person responds, "What is their problem?" --Golbez (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Incogreader - Do you know and understand Wikipedia's policy on the requirement to word all articles and content to reflect a neutral point of view? It appears that your edits to articles have reflected a pro-North Korean point-of-view, which is not neutral and violates this policy. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
As per this edit, the source is literally owned by the Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China, and the source itself seems a bit off. Nigos (t@lk Contribs) 12:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
First on, Tibet. So, it is OK to use sources like "International Campaign for Tibet" (website is savetibet.org), The International Commission of Jurists (funded by the CIA and which functioned more or less as its propaganda instrument), CIA agents like the Dalai Lama (just three questionable sources that come to mind), but not to add information from a source representing over a billion people? It is clearly labelled as China's view, unlike many of the various other sources of the kind I mentioned. What is off about that particular edit? Do you have evidence the ROC did not approve the current Dalai Lama's enthronement, or that the other historical documents referred to are fake? If not, the edit was good and I have challenged the "revert" (of which there doesn't appear to have been one, but it still disappeared somehow). As one commentator has noted, China's claim to Tibet is much stronger than the American claim to parts of the Western United States (or for that matter, the American South, over which it fought a civil war which ended slavery - in the United States, that is - it still continued in Tibet for many years, only ending after the PRC's intervention).
  • Also, I have not written about "how awesome North Korea is", as per Golbez, or "how awesome Communist China is for Tibet," per "someguy", just added sourced facts, written the truth (which speaks for itself), and balanced out a number of biased articles. None of my edits reflect a specifically pro-North Korean POV, they have just attempted to bring neutrality to topics that are desperately lacking it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incogreader (talkcontribs) 17:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Block indefinitely this account. This is a very clear pattern of POV-pushing, possibly editing on the behalf or North Korean government. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
None of the users listed here have gone into any detail of what exactly is the problem beyond vague "pro-North Korean POV" or (presumably) "pro-China" POV. They have not stated what specifically I've added to articles that is "pro-North Korea." As for "possibly editing on the behalf or North Korean government," this is a very serious claim, so you must have some proof for that (other than editing pages related North Korea - and Tibet - in addition to a few other edits)? Luckily this isn't South Korea with its National Security Law.Incogreader (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
See Streisand effect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Here is an example of editing by Incogreader. Yes, the sourcing of the page must be significantly improved, but the facts about the abductions are well known. There is nothing "alleged" here. Incogreader inserts the following: "Questions have been raised as to whether Jin Gyeong-suk was actually arrested, rather than abducted" sourced to ... a WP page. What? Well, even if we wanted to use this page as a source, it tells something very different, as anyone can easily check. They remove "Despite the testimonies of former abductees who have escaped from the North,..." (but these testimonies are well known and publicized, so this is an important to note). And so on. My very best wishes (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
In fact, according to the same article, North Korea disputes the existence of post-war abductees, so alleged is appropriate. And the article on Jin Gyeong-suk contains the line "The question arose whether Jin had actually been kidnapped or only arrested in accordance with North Korean law.", so this question actually has come up. The same article also says that the person in question was to meet a middle-man who "was supposed to smuggle a video camera into North Korea" on her behalf. If she had been acting legally there would be no need to get someone to smuggle it. How would she know about supposed drug involvement by the North Korean government anyway? Did she report this story to the proper authorities before seeking out the aid of foreign forces? The story itself raises some questions. I could not find anything from North Korea reporting this - if they have indeed not acknowledged an arrest, perhaps she was kidnapped by drug traffickers independent of North Korea, if her story actually has even a bit of truth to it. And finally, if the "testimonies of former abductees" are "well known and publicized," there should be no problem with finding a source and readding the passage in question. I checked, and although I did not spend a long time searching, I could not easily find any. Incogreader (talk) 03:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect Wikipedia promotions from Kim Fatso III so this may be just a rare case of Juche enthusiast. But the above abduction-denial is delusional as well as inexcusable. Block this account. Tsu*miki* 🌉 04:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I have not actually denied the claimed North Korean abductions in South Korea, just raised questions. Although, based on the sources, I do find it doubtful. To my knowledge, China has never raised this issue, even though several cases are alleged to have happened there. Incogreader (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


Regarding this line;

"First on, Tibet. So, it is OK to use sources like "International Campaign for Tibet" (website is savetibet.org), The International Commission of Jurists (funded by the CIA and which functioned more or less as its propaganda instrument), CIA agents like the Dalai Lama (just three questionable sources that come to mind),"

Unfortunately, propagandists for "Democratic People's Republic" of Korea aren't the only communist propagandists to push this lie. The "Party for Socialism and Liberation" is big on perpetuating this propaganda (https://factandtruth.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/american-people-oppose-anti-china-campaign/). Ignore the title of the link - it's neither facts nor truth. So I agree with Tsumikiria and others here. Block thus user. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
What exactly is untrue? Did ICJ not receive CIA funding? A check of its Wikipedia page shows that it did, and that it was in fact co-founded by long-time CIA director Allen Dulles. Did the current Dalai Lama not receive founding from the CIA as well? Again, research based on declassified American documents shows that he personally received funding from the CIA.[1] Incogreader (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


Look at this edit - You cannot just use Google as a source here, and why did you remove a reliable source (Reuters) here? As for this edit, I'm sure that North Korea itself threatened to launch missiles at Guam, and not test. This source tells that it was a threatened launch. Nigos (t@lk Contribs) 13:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
The removal of the Reuters article citation was accidental (the part about the CIA's help with fleeing to India was also removed, again by accident). I meant to remove only the line "because the people of Tibet wanted to take a stance and protect the man they all cherished, from the communist government." THAT is obviously POV ("the man they all cherished"?). As for the missile tests, I would like to see a source for the claim that North Korea threatened to launch at Guam without provocation, if this is what you are claiming. Regardless, it did not actually launch a missile at Guam, it test fired one into the air, and it landed safely dozens of miles away from Guam. Incogreader (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


  • Quick check shows that Incogreader intentionally misinforms readers. Consider this edit with edit summary: "source cited does not actually confirm 45% stunted North Korean children". How come? Here is the source, and it tells: "Roughly 45 per cent of North Korean children under the age of five are stunted from malnutrition". The user did start a discussion on talk [72], but in no way the discussion disproves what this and other RS tell. My very best wishes (