Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1017

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Tony May and persistent criticism and belittling of other editors on British railways[edit]

This has gone on for some months and shows no sign of decreasing, with new outbreaks in recent days. Tony May (talk · contribs) is a self-proclaimed expert on British railways, photography and Wikipedia editing. I have no intention of challenging this. Other editors do not reach his standards and he is never slow to remind us of this. His comments thus are dismissive of other editors' work and personally insulting. A number of editors have suffered from this.

Around January, there was substantial disagreement with Moylesy98 (talk · contribs) over use of their photographs in articles. There was considerable debate over this and a broad agreement in the UK Railways project that Moylesy's edits were an issue, but also that Tony's comments were far too personalised. This went on for months, with no improvement:

This wasn't limited to one editor as target:

After some peace over the Summer, we're now back at a different article:

Yesterday this one pops up:

  • Well, I thought it had been peaceful over the Summer, evidently not: "don't use that crap photo", "You really don't understand the point of consensus (see the talk page), or indeed that the inadequate Hest Bank image replaced (presumably by anon) a much better image."
British Rail Class 390 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This isn't targetted to any single editor, so I'm not going to go into the diffs, but they're there in the links. The common theme here is Tony May. He seems unable to critique any content without it turning into sniping at the editor themself. We might excuse a few of these (they're not great, it happens) but this seems to be a pervasive theme with Tony and there are few edits with anything but.

  • "- that unfortunately is not a productive comment, but given your history, it's not unexpected. You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Introduction - especially the bit where it says "if you don't want your work critiqued and mercilessly edited by others, don't contribute." Do you have anything relevant to add to this discussion?"
  • " Firstly I don't need to make you look like a "shit photographer" - you're managing that all by yourself on Flickr."
  • "inclusion of poor quality fan art"
  • " I think it's best first to have a really long hard think about what you're doing and be knowledgeable about the subject. "

I think we need a strong warning here, and an indication that sanctions will follow unless this stops immediately. Or perhaps something stronger. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Andy Dingley's reading of the situation here. As I said to Tony May a week ago, Your "the only person who's opinion matters is mine and when everyone else disagrees then everyone else is wrong" attitude is fundamentally incompatible with multiple core values of Wikipedia, and if you're not willing to change your approach then eventually people will decide to stop giving you second chances; the fact that you're still able to edit Wikipedia at all is a result of people extending a huge amount of WP:AGF towards you in the hope that you'll stop fucking about, not the fact that anyone supports you. Wikipedia thrives on having people with a broad range of interests and with a broad range of views, but people who aren't willing or able to appreciate the fact that other people will sometimes disagree with them aren't welcome here.; the fact of the User talk:Railfan23#You need to undo your ill-advised moves· thread linked above strongly indicates that Tony May appears unable or unwilling to separate "I think I'm correct" from "I think everyone else is an idiot". (Note that I know or care very little about steam trains and have no idea whether or not Tony May is correct in this particular case; but whether he's correct does not matter if he's not willing to discuss things.) I don't want to see Tony May blocked—he clearly thinks he's being helpful—but he needs it driven home to him that he's not irreplacable and that if he genuinely refuses to follow our rules we don't want him no matter what positives he brings. ‑ Iridescent 13:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I was certainly surprised by Tony May's post n my talk page. It was rude and a very hostile way to start interacting with another editor. If it was a one-off, it would be excusable, but as part of a broader pattern of interactions, it is worrying. Railfan23 (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Tony May raises a valid point but they are too dogmatic about it. Photography more appropriately conveys valid information than "artist-created" imagery. I am distancing myself from the term "fan art" used in this thread. The likelihood of an image being original research is greater when a human, by hand, makes a drawing, than it is when a camera snaps an image. This is not 100% true all the time but I think it is a general principle and I think it is the principle Tony May is invoking. Availability of images is a factor and different types of images—mechanically-produced by a camera, and hand-rendered by other techniques—can supplement each other in an article. Tony May's point should be understood but Tony May should not insist that only photographically-produced images are acceptable. Diagrams are commonly used throughout the project. They can be said to be artist-created but they serve very well at conveying information. Bus stop (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The information they contain needs to be verifiable though. Fan art, meanwhile, is a not a derogatory term. Some fan art is absolutely brilliant. Almond Plate (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The only point I disagree with in Andy's post is the start date. It's not a 2019 thing, this user page proves that the attitude has been present since 2012. - X201 (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Checking your links I noticed that in most cases other users sniped at Tony first. While Tony occasionally also gives compliments (and photography advice), these other users seem more focused on getting their way. I do agree that Tony should phrase his edit summaries differently, but there is room for improvement for everybody involved. Almond Plate (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The term "Fan art" is irrelevant to this discussion. Imagery resulting from from highly mechanized processes produces highly rational imagery. A camera doesn't care if it is set up in front of a boring object or an interesting object. A human-rendered image is more likely to show signs of having been influenced by subjective factors. The use of photographic equipment bypasses subjective factors to result in what I am calling rational images. It is hard to call rational images original research. Handmade imagery is more vulnerable to charges of original research. On the other hand, handmade images can be free of extraneous information. Therefore judgement has to be exercised. Bus stop (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Fan art" is doubly insulting, when it's used in this context. No way round it. It describes the editor, not as an 'illustrator' or 'editor', taking their role here seriously, but as merely a 'fan'. A passive follower of railways (and by context, a trivialised subject), with no sense of agency or skill. Secondly it lumps these in with fan art, a niche that's by and large seen as utterly pointless and largely unskilled.
Valid criticisms here would be "The colours are wrong" (professionally my day job is to colour match some of these and I get endless trouble from it) or "That logo version never appeared with that colour set" or similar things. But I've heard none of those: the criticisms aren't even objective, they're purely subjective IDONTLIKEIT. At least for photos, Tony often had an underlying reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
We all have different backgrounds. As someone who uses fan art a lot, I have the utmost respect for the people that create it. The criticism here was that it was of poor quality. Almond Plate (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that the criticism was unsubstantiated. An editor can't just say "low quality" and walk away as if he has made an argument. Same with "looks amateurish" or a lot of other things Tony has said. It's about as convincing as someone saying "he's notable" as their entire keep !vote at AFD. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to raise what he said on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WestRail642fan#Illustrating_Articles and he is effecting telling to stay away from wikipedia Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow. I presume that's related to Talk:British_Rail_Class_370#Do_we_really_need_the_MS_paint_diagram?? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Yep Andy, and the issue he raised on the 370 was because his sources only showed the APT running with 9 coaches when all fact and sources on the article itself point to and confirm 14 coaches, which my diagram shows Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
...Over train photos. I read the discussion and what screams out at me is the obsessiveness of the argument about why that diagram can't work. Stuff about it not having the right number of cats. I think it would be in Tony May's benefit to recognize that the average reader of an article with that diagram would not care in the slightest if the number of same-looking train cars is not 100% accurate. This feels like an argument one would be having on a wiki specifically for train enthusiasts, not a general information encyclopedia. Tony, calm down please. 2001:4898:80E8:8:4A8C:90EF:7D89:7E37 (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Tony is giving you well-meant advice. Your artwork can't stay here unless it gets sourced, which seems unlikely at the moment. It will be appreciated much more elsewhere. I would suggest DeviantArt though rather than Flickr. DeviantArt has a whole community of artists working on train liveries. Almond Plate (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I do actually post them to deviantART is well, but they are primarily meant for use here Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Almond Plate there is no substantive difference between a diagram of a train based on photos and an encyclopaedia article based on published news/papers/magazines/etc. Both are easily checkable, but will not be 100% a replication of the details. For instance a news article might say "Joe Bloggs lived at 10 Borough Road, Islington", whereas we might write "Joe Bloggs lived in London", but we can look at the source and say "yes, that statement is justified". Similarly we can look at a photo of the train and say "yes, that looks about right". Maybe we need to look at 100 photos to accept every bit of the diagram, but it can be checked. The point of the diagram is to summarise the livery in a more easily-digestible format. Similarly Large Hadron Collider summarises a huge number of scientific articles and papers into something more easily interpretable. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
No, Tony is obnoxiously expressing his personal opinion that consistently fails to achieve consensus. You can compare the diagrams to the actual photos of real trains to satisfy yourself if you must. There is certainly an argument that source links should be provided, or the image information page should link to a true photograph of an equivalent car, but I honestly have no idea what you or Tony would consider a "source" for this. The purpose of technical drawings is to simplify complex items into key details for focus and comparison, and these do it very well. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • So, no comment from @Tony May:. What's next? Any proposals for formalised action? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Someguy1221 makes a valid point that "technical drawings is to simplify complex items into key details". But Tony May is making the equally valid point that user-created imagery is inherently original research. We overlook this when the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. In a diagram the simplification is so advantageous that we disregard the fact that it is one user's rendering of that which is depicted. I think Tony May is demanding higher standards of verisimilitude for the depicted rail transport stock. I don't know if they have a valid point about that or not, but I believe that the principle on which their argument rests is entirely valid—however they will have to accept consensus which considers these user-created images to be adequate for inclusion in the relevant articles. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • But this thread is not about the quality of the contributions, it's about Tony's responses to them.
We have had a (pretty reasonable) series of threads on how to select the "best" photographs of those available. We haven't had anything similar on images such as this – maybe we should. But when the response to anyone is couched in the sort of terms that Tony keeps using, any sort of collaborative project breaks down (Tony has driven multiple editors away from this work already). That needs to stop. We can talk about the quality issues later, but we have to talk about them, not just harangue and belittle others. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd say no action at this time beyond a general reminder to play nice. You were right to bring this to ANI though, and may in fact have prevented escalation. Almond Plate (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. I think Andy brought it here for escalation, instead of following normal dispute resolution within the project. He's done that to me, too. Dicklyon (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • So @Tony May: is editing again, but still ignoring this thread. He's also back to edit-warring over images Talk:British Rail D0260. Any suggestions? (as I'm a bit too INVOLVED here). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    He does seem a bit rude about how he presses his point, but not to the level of needing admin intervention. Why don't you formulate a neutral RFC question about the so-called "fan art" items and document the community consensus instead of just bickering? Dicklyon (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Well as you're much less involved than I am, how about you formulating it? (a serious suggestion, BTW).
My AGF was stretched thin by his behaviour towards Moylesy, but when I realised that our resident photographic expert hadn't uploaded a single one of his own photographs, it snapped altogether. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, I'll give it a try, at the project talk page. Can you send me pointers to the most relevant article examples, livery galleries, or whatever? And a list of involved editors to notify? Mind if I find the caps in "Livery Details" while I'm at it? Dicklyon (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I've been away for a few days so missed most of this WP:DRAMA. I'm disappointed by Andy's actions, but I don't want to take an antagonistic approach towards them. I'm saddened by his antagonsitic approach, which is far too WP:DRAMA. I'm not angry. I don't upload my own photos, there are reasons for that which I don't want to discuss publicly, but I have uploaded many good photos from flickr to Wikimedia Commons. I would be prepared to discuss photographs using appropriate technical terms if anyone wants to test my knowledge and WP:COMPETENCE. That is all I have to say here. There has been some good discussion at WP:VP(P) - and then there is this. Tony May (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Antagonistic? I'm not the one telling people, "Firstly I don't need to make you look like a "shit photographer" - you're managing that all by yourself on Flickr." Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If either of you is inclined to do something productive instead of playing in the mud here, please help complete what I started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#(draft)_RFC_on_the_use_on_livery_art_and_other_editor-constructed_diagrams_in_articles. Dicklyon (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Welp, FWIW, there's a WP:BLPN post languishing that could use some eyes.-- Dlohcierekim 18:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

RFC on the underlying questions is now open at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#RFC_on_the_use_on_livery_art_and_other_editor-constructed_diagrams_in_articles. Some eyes from outside the project might be useful. Dicklyon (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

(content below relocated as irrelevant to the proposal Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC))
  • Elsewhere, editors are discussing points I have raised like adults. And there is this.
  • Hampering my ability to edit the articles I mostly edit is largely pointless
  • In order to select images that are good I need to make value judgements about images. Most people are not photographers, and don't understand how to take useful photos, I understand this.
  • I have raised the sockpuppet point individually with Andy on his talk page, - I consider it a minor side issue - and await his input.
  • I have made many good contributions, which include sorting out image choice on many articles, ironically which Andy admits he mostly agrees with.
  • I admit that I accidentally may have insinuated that another editor (who's now got banned) was a "shit photographer" - after trying to deal patiently with this editor, his WP:VANITY, and lack of skill with a camera. Note this comment was made after he had suggested that I had personally attacked him and called him a "shit photographer" - which at that stage I had not. I should have phrased this more politely. If I have got frustrated with any other editors, at previous points, I regret this.

Again, I'm not angry, just trying to improve articles and clarify policy where clarification seems needed. Tony May (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Please don't keep moving this to below the proposal. If you want to oppose all, just say that.
But this is clearly the threaded discussion which belongs here, and which you haven't previously replied to.
You have made many excellent edits to mainspace and have selected many images for good reasons, and for reasons which you have helped to codify, for which we thank you. But you can't keep making personal sleights on other editors like this, and which you still keep doing. If other editors think that needs a formal restriction to avoid it, then that's what's likely to happen. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I usually try to avoid this page like the plague, but something about this caught my interest. Tony May, you know, I am a shitty photographer. Just not my specialty. Rarely if only by accident would any of my pictures ever win me some award for artistic achievement. My talent has always been in writing, or so I'm told. I've had a great deal of experience in writing non-fiction, and that is what I try to bring to the table. My photographic endeavors are purely to give a visual aid to the reader, to help explain what the text is talking about, and that is often where some real imagination comes in handy. A picture really is worth a thousand words, and can really help clarify what the text is talking about. However, a crappy picture that is informative is worth a thousand beautiful, artsy pictures that don't show squat of what the text means.
Art is very subjective, One person's art may be another's eyesore. What is far more important in a non-fiction realm like this is objectivity. None of my pictures are really that good, yet they can be found in everything from books to scientific studies to magazines to blogs, so they must be serving some greater purpose.
What particularly caught my eye was the notion that editor-drawn images are somehow inferior to photographs, which I think is particularly wrong. There are many, many instances of very good drawings and graphs created by editors, which often cannot be photographed. (Let's face it, no camera has ever been made that can match what the eye sees, and even that has its limitations.) Some drawings definitely need sourcing, such as this. Others can give the reader a very good visual of processes or internal structures that are hard if not impossible to photograph, based on a plethora of sources and their non-free illustrations already found in the articles, such as this or this. Some users may create their own graphs using the same NIST traceable instruments used by reliable sources, such as this one. Others might come along and take the same readings using their own crude instruments, like this, then combine the two, both adding a little color to the image and verifying the results, such as this. Last but not least, people may create images out of their own imagination, based upon records or other forms of data, like this and other useful pictures created by this artist.
Lastly, and I mean this to help, your arguments are full of many logical fallacies, not the least of which is argument from authority. You may have some good reasons for picking a certain image over another (for example, lede images are often subjected to much greater artistic scrutiny that images in the body), but you're going about it in the wrong way. Both I and people like Andy here tend to be very straight-forward --often to the point of being blunt-- but there are much better and more friendly ways to tell someone their work is not up to par rather than "you suck". And in some cases, such as this edit, the crappier image is much more informative than the higher quality one. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

  • In the light of Tony choosing to ignore this thread, I don't think there's much likelihood of agreement with him over anything. It has been suggested that this thread might act as "a general reminder to play nice." What we've actually seen instead is:
  • Edit-warring at Lion to remove an infobox image [1] [2] (stemming from an edit in March [3])
  • sockpuppeting allegations against @Bow1s53:
  • As always, he keeps throwing around terms like "fundamentally dishonest" and "we can now get rid of this particularly bad photo". Clearly this ANI thread has had zero influence.
So, proposal time:
  1. TBAN from editing the subject of image links in mainspace
  2. 1RR from the above
  3. TBAN from discussing choice of image or image quality in any space
  4. TBAN from disparaging comments to other editors or their edits, re: image choice or images uploaded here or at Commons, or even to other sites, such as Flickr, where these uploads are identifiably those of WP editors.
  • I would support 1,2,4 but not yet 3 at this time (although I feel I might come to regret that). 4 ought to be implicit on all editors anyway, but clearly it needs to be spelled out. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would support 1 and 4 - Even with 1RR I feel he would be disruptive. Jeni (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose all. This proposal is unjustly one-sided and based on an assumption of bad faith. What I see is editwarring by Andy Dingley (while clearly wrong), and various uncivil comments by Andy on Talk:British Rail D0260. This I find very disappointing. Users are allowed to comment on the quality of a photo, too, and to ask how a dormant editor suddenly arrived in the middle of a discussion to side with Andy is not entirely illogical. Just in case: Andy, please be aware that imposing 1RR on an opponent in a content dispute doesn't mean that you are free to win all arguments by reverting twice. Almond Plate (talk) 22:07, 22 August
  • Oppose. I think the phrase "shit photographer" should not upset us overly. In a dispute clear ommunication is important. I'm not in favor of incivility but I'm also not in favor curtailing clear communication. Bus stop (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal[edit]

  1. Editors will not add images to British railway articles, specifically models, livery diagrams and other images not depicting the topic of the article (i.e. the real train), or keep them, unless there is a clear consensus to do so. Almond Plate (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer. Almond Plate (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose clearly a ridiculous suggestion. One step away from suggesting that editors don't edit the pages at all! Jeni (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Wiki Facts fixer[edit]

Wiki Facts fixer (talk · contribs) is banned by the community. They have separately been indefinitely blocked for serious violations of the biographies of living persons policy and for multiple instances of sockpuppetry. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:58, 25 August 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:Wiki Facts fixer has a long history of changing the nationalities of sports players to reflect his very narrow view of who is allowed to be an American or European. A few examples: on Sinan Gümüş, on Bobby Dixon and on Mesut Özil. He clearly believes is it not possible for people from certain countries to be nationals of America, Germany etc. These edits are constantly reverted and his talk page is a long list of complaints about this specific behavior. I came across him today making a similar edit to Ekpe Udoh where he changed the long-standing description of Udoh from American to Nigerian. I sourced Udoh being American to a New York Times article [4] but User:Wiki Facts fixer continues to revert me with unsourced or poorly sourced changes. There is a long exchange on my talk page about this. As far as I can tell this user is pushing a particular and narrow view of nationality through unsourced edits and original research (see the edit summary of his latest revert). See also this edit to Orkun Kökçü and this unsourced change to Nigeria national basketball team. Note the personal attack in that last edit summary. I don't believe we need this nationalist agenda-pusher on Wikipedia. Railfan23 (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

What nationalist agenda, I sourced all my content relevant to Udoh and Orkun Kökçü, it is IN the article of Kökçü that he has CHOSEN Turkey do he is considered TURKISH like Udoh is in the Nigerian National team so he is NIGERIAN...YOU are the one pushing an agenda!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talkcontribs) 23:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Tell me what I did wrong with Ali Muhammed ?? I CORRECTED the spelling of his name! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talkcontribs) 23:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC) You say you sourced Udoh but with an OLD article, my article was from FIBA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talkcontribs) 23:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It is literally stated on Wikipedia if they PLAY for a NATIONAL TEAM they are considered that NATIONALITY look at Fenerbahçe basketball roster “players may have a SECOND nationality”!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talkcontribs) 23:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

What personal attack?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talkcontribs) 23:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

"Railfan23 are you insane?" is a very clear personal attack. Please read: WP:NPA. Railfan23 (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

FIBA is poorly sourced? Give me a break, it is the official international basketball association liken Fifa for football! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talkcontribs) 23:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, Railfan23 has continuously threatened me to be blocked or reported etc when my edits to Kökçü and Udoh are correct and sourced, isn’t threatening me a personal attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talkcontribs) 23:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Facts fixer, you need to understand that nationality/citizenship is a legal status. It does not change merely because someone plays a sport for another country. 86.143.227.147 (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

See also these edits to the Moussaka article. [5] Wiki Facts fixer is clearly here to push an agenda. 86.143.227.147 (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Further evidence of POV-pushing: [6][7], and see this edit summary "Ethnicity determines a person not his birthplace". [8] 86.143.227.147 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Wiki Facts fixer has now violated WP:3RR on Ekpe Udoh. Could we get an admin intervention, please? Railfan23 (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

What is your intention, explain what I have done to you for you to have an agenda to get me banned, you are the one vandalising his page not me! You have threatened me but I don’t report you but your agenda is against me more than what I’ve done. I have done nothing wrong and it is a straight fact that the nationality is in line with the national team choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talkcontribs) 01:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You are evidently stalking me because you are finding obscure things from the past, one tiny yet factual edit on mussaka and you complain, to even find that you have stalked me as it is irrelevant to sport and it is long ago and it is true that the dish comes from Turkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talkcontribs) 01:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You are reporting me because of the Ekpe Udoh edit, all the past edits are irrelevant

I have sourced all my edits on Ekpe Udoh’s page and finally they are factual - he plays for Nigeria. So you should be arguing about Udoh NOT about past things from MANY MONTHS ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talkcontribs) 01:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

And what I said is NOT a personal attack but both of you two THREATENING me IS a personal attack!

Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Pointing out that almost your entire editing history seems to revolve around making POV-pushing edits regarding the nationality of sports players is not a personal attack. Pointing out that you have been repeatedly told to stop is not a personal attack. And pointing out that nationality isn't determined by who you play a sport for (or by ethnicity for that matter) isn't a personal attack. As for your edit to the Moussaka article, how exactly did you determine the 'facts' that enabled you to decide that the photo was of Turkish Mussaka rather then Greek Moussaka? Are you seriously suggesting you can determine the 'nationality' of a dish served all around the eastern Mediterranean from a photograph? The person who uploaded the photo labelled it as 'food from Greece' [9], and I see no reason to assume otherwise. Regardless of where the dish originated, if the uploader says this example is Greek, why should we doubt it? 86.143.227.147 (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban on nationality/ethnicity/citizenship[edit]

I propose a topic ban on nationality/ethnicity/citizenship. That way we can see if Wiki Facts fixer is able to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. If his edits even outside of that parameter are likewise disruptive, then he will probably end up blocked. Softlavender (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Argument about article content which isn't directly related to the TBAN discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

http://www.fiba.basketball/downloads/v3_expe/agen/docs/3-ELIGIBILITY-NATIONAL-STATUS-of-%20PLAYERS.pdf

Here is evidence to what I have been saying it says: “In order to play for the national team of a country, a player must hold the legal nationality of that country, and have fulfilled also the conditions of eligibility according to the FIBA Internal Regulations.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talkcontribs) 02:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The following sentence states "Any player with two legal nationalities or more, by birth or by naturalisation, may choose at any age the national team for which he wishes to play". Which is why even WP:OR wouldn't entitle someone to assert that a person didn't hold a nationality other than that of the team for which they played. Not that it matters, since interpreting FIBA rules to determine nationality is WP:OR, and contrary to policy. Find a source (complying with (WP:RS) that explicitly states that the specific person being discussed no longer holds a nationality before removing it. 86.143.227.147 (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

So there is no justification for me to be blocked, only they should be for harassing me and vandalising my sourced fixes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Facts fixer (talkcontribs) 02:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support That's a good proposal, thank you User:Softlavender. Railfan23 (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, concur that the proposal would be a good way to see if the editor can contribute usefully outside of the contentious area. Considering that the editor can't seem to drop the stick (as seen above) and that the username plus behavior strongly suggest something like WP:RGW or POV-pushing, I'm not optimistic, but let's give them some rope. creffett (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, though I don't expect much notice to be taken of an IP. For what its worth, I think it might be more productive if rather than topic-banning Wiki Facts fixer, he/she were instead blocked until such time as evidence could be provided that they have read WP:OR and WP:RS, and that they understand the necessity to comply with such policies. I suspect a topic ban will only move the problem elsewhere. 86.143.227.147 (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I wouldn;t object to an indef block as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It is completely unjust to block me, however if you block me, then 86.143.227. should also be blocked as he attacked me. All my edits to Ekpe Udoh have sufficient evidence as you can see Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC) My username now suggests things about my alleged intentions. This is crazy all I have done is source an edit to Ekpe Udoh but my username suggests something else....wow Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support an indef-block in addition to a topic-ban based on the above. It's clear Wiki Facts fixer cares more about victory than debate or collaboration. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 18:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Topic ban and wouldn't object to a block per Jéské--Jorm (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban This editor's failure to acknowledge the deep concerns about their conduct makes an indefinite block likely unless they correct course quickly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban. I was going to stay out of this, but it's quite clear that they don't get it. Even with this discussion open, they continue making the same edits that brought them here. Frood 01:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose (for now) I have had significant interaction with Wiki Facts fixer (see "May 2019" at their Talk page, Sinan_Gümüş at their Talk page, and Tolgay Arslan discussion at my Talk page; more at different articles) and as I see it, they have been inappropriately temperamental but I see reason to assume good faith for now. At Tolgay Arslan, after being repeatedly told they needed to source a change, they tried: edit history at the article. At WP:FOOTY we assume that someone who plays for a country must hold that nationality (as well) (pinging involved FOOTY editors: @DerDFB:, @Jaellee:, @Oblow14:) and Wiki Facts Fixer was told so multiple times (examples: Revert at Kerem Demirbay, edit history at Suat Serdar, Ferdi_Kadioğlu discussion at WFf's Talk page, I'm sure there are more). I assume Wiki Facts fixer must have been surprised to receive so much opposition at Ekpe Udoh where they argued based on the player's national team allegiance. Some edits, such as those as Moussaka I find very problematic. But I am in favour of not topic-banning the user but to warn them to not show WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and to start sourcing their changes, and giving them a recommendation to stay away from this contentious topic. Robby.is.on (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
"At WP:FOOTY we assume that someone who plays for a country must hold that nationality (as well)". WP:RS,WP:OR and WP:BLP apply, regardless of what WP:FOOTY says. And Wiki Facts fixer wasn't just adding a new (dual) nationality, he was attempting to erase any link to a previous nationality. See e.g. the mess he has made of the Bobby Dixon article, and the way he removed 'German-born' from the Hakan Çalhanoğlu article. These aren't just evidence of being 'inappropriately temperamental', but of having an agenda. [10] (I'm same person as 86.143.227.147 above, with dynamic IP) 86.134.76.164 (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban, and indefinite block. Jayjg (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Argument about article content which isn't directly related to the TBAN discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

No this is called consistency Bobby Dixon’s name was spelt incorrectly so I edited it to “Ali Muhammed” from “Ali Muhammad” And the reason I removed German-born is due to consistency. You never see “x born” in players so I chose to keep this consistent. For example, we do not write Brazilian born for Diego Costa or German born for Cenk Tosun etc etc. So why is it necessary information to write “German-born Turkish” if it is not consistently used in every single player. So as you can see 86.143.227. there is zero agenda, and those of the past have completely changed as you can see in my modern edits I have only edited based on national team allegiance as I have been suggested to in the past however I am now being reported for doing how I have been advised in the past. However, 86.143.227. I do recall you insulting me and implying I am uneducated, so why has this had no admin response.

Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that's not helpful to them in the least. It shows me that not only do they still not understand (I hope), but also don't want to. I do think at this point a tban is necessary if they want to avoid an indef block. We all should drop the stick because it seems they just want to argue. Nothing more is going to come out of this. Frood 20:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The reason I left a message on talk pages is to see your reasonings specifically to come to a more detailed understanding. What’s the point in this at all if nobody wants to speak with me about it, it just seems like nobody cares and just want me off the site rather than peacefully communicating together to come to a better understanding and go from there. The main reason why I want this is because throughout my time on Wikipedia all other pages have the same edit which I added to these players and I have always been told by other users that I must edit in this way back when I used to get in trouble for disruptively editing pages many months ago when I didn’t have a good enough understanding of what is the norm on Wikipedia. So this is the reason I want to talk, not to start an argument but to have discussion over what I have always been told to do - it’s only fair if both sides a thoroughly heard. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I urge you all to put yourself in my shoes - yes I used to disruptively edit but that’s because I had no idea how this website worked - then users told me that if I keep changing nationalities to something other than their national team allegiance I will be banned/reported and that I MUST edit nationalities in terms of who they play for. I then do this (like I did on Ekpe Udoh’s page) and another set of users tell me I will be reported and banned. But this is exactly what I was told to do by the other users. no matter what I do both sides tell me I am wrong and I will be banned. Can you see how confusing this is for me and how it is so difficult to understand. I have no clue what to do, if I edit how I have been originally advised you will try to ban me, if I edit how you guys tell me to then they will try to ban me. It is very confusing and doesn’t make sense because of this. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Then provide evidence. A link showing exactly where you were told that you must "edit nationalities in terms of who they play for". Something we can verify. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think he will, because he's been doing this before anyone has ever meaningfully interacted with him. The only way his claim works is if he's a sock account of someone else. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 04:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
That link you provided is exactly what I said I used to do. Cluelessly edit out of line with who they are playing with, but as you can see all got reverted back to their national teams. Look at my talk page and reverts look how many people have said they are playing for “x national team”.Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • NOTE: Based on the results of the SPI [11], and the fact that the editor has apparently done this nonsense via other accounts, and the fact that he seems only to be here to troll and disrupt, I now also Support an indefinite block -- that is, a WP:CBAN -- for this editor. Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I have said that the ErrorFixor was an account I used when I lost my password to this account. Also if you look at the dates, you can see it is very old and back at the time when I was disruptively editing before I understood how this worked. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The user denied having a second account at first at their talk page. I can't find where the user disclosed their previous account. --MrClog (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I just explained to you at the investigation page why I denied it Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, he says "The reason I made that account [ErrorFixor] was because I lost my password to this account [Wiki Facts fixer]", and "I had completely forgot about this account [Wiki Facts fixer] because look how old it is [it was created on 31 May 2017], but then I came across this and I recognise the account" [and apparently remembered the password]. He also said that he thought he had disclosed the second account "but when looking it seems it didn’t go through or I just have a false memory of it."
I think what we're getting from Wiki Facts fixer is very fast tap dancing which amounts to a bunch of fabulations. I now support an indef block (CBAN) with the topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support indef ban as WP:CBAN per Softlavender. --MrClog (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ban but also strongly indef block as per WP:CNH Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose CBAN I'm not seeing behavior that rises to CBAN levels, and I'm willing to forgive someone for forgetting about an account which only made a half-dozen edits. I disagree with Softlavender's characterization of the user as "only here to troll and disrupt," there are clearly IDHT issues here but this does not strike me as trolling or intentional disruption, just significant misunderstandings as well as stubbornness on the definition of nationality. I believe a TBAN is sufficient to deal with the problem (as I !voted above). creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 17:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose CBAN: I agree with Creffett. I don't think he's been disruptive enough to warrant a site ban, but certainly a TBAN. I'd like to see him be able to contribute constructively. If the disruption continues, maybe. But for now, probably not. Frood 18:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Really?
  • "Do you have a second account?"
  • "No I do not have a second account."
  • "What about this account which edits like you and has a similar name?"
  • "Oh yeah, I made that account because I forgot the password to this account."
  • "Why did you deny having a second accout?"
  • "I forgot about it."
  • "Did you disclose your second account?"
  • I thought I did, but I must have misremembered."
And you guys still have AGF left? Socks and disruptive editors aren't required to be good at socking or disruption or dissembling about socking or disruption, all it takes to give them the heave-ho is socking and disruption. You want maybe they should take some lessons at socking and disruption and come back and be more disruptive before we shut the door on him? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Can't speak for Frood, but I do indeed have AGF left, because that's not socking. Maybe I'm naive, maybe I'm less jaded, but all I see is failure to disclose a previous account, which is certainly a suspicious act but nowhere near enough of a problem to call for a CBAN. The editor's previous account was not the subject of any adverse actions (warnings, blocks, bans, etc.) and did not operate at the same time as the current account, so there is no socking or evasion here. Like I said above, the editor is more than a little stubborn, but I only see disruptive editing in the area that we're discussing TBANning them (and they appear to have stopped editing in that area for the time being, which is also a point in their favor). creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 12:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Yep, that pretty much sums up what I was thinking. The full conversation with Jayjg definitely shows that they don't get it, but I do think we should give them some rope. This would be a pretty easy tban to comply with, so if they hang themselves with it, that's on them. Frood 19:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: at least be fair here, I used that account like 4/5 months ago and I made like 5/6 edits on that account. How is that going to come straight to my mind. I forgot about the account. Furthermore I am sure I went to disclose it however like I said I’m either misremembering or my internet went down - sometimes it takes a while on here for my edits to come through - that’s the only other way it could’ve happened. I never even used that account since I got my password back for this account. I originally thought I was accused about using two accounts now. Then I opened that page and I saw that account and I remembered it (I had already said I’m not using a second account before I saw that account) I completely forgot about it. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, are you supporting a total site ban or just a topic ban and/or indef block? I only ask because of the and would not be opposed to indef block part. Frood 18:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, clarified. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Are we being trolled?[edit]

I see that despite the multiple posts on Wiki Facts fixer's talk page on the requirement for edits to cite sources, and despite the long discussion here on the same subject, Wiki Facts fixer has just created an entirely unsourced biography of Tarık Biberovic (basketball). One which states that "Tarık Biberovic was born in Zenica,Bosnia to Turkish parents. He was granted Turkish citizenship due to his blood relation to Turkey. He has chosen to play for the Turkish national team". And for good measure states in the infobox that his nationality is 'French'. At this point, I can see no reason to assume anything other than complete and utter incompetence combined with a total incapacity to countenance the possibility that he might ever be wrong about anything, or deliberate trolling. And I'd go with the latter. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I have already explained the situation, on three separate help pages as each time I have tried to add my sources it says “error edit not saved” instead of trying to find any form of evidence against me, I am trying to make an edit I would appreciate the help if anybody here knows how to fix this error message. Also who is French? Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see where you saw “French” basically I copied and pasted the Nando De Colo’s page and edited it to suit Tarık Biberovic. I only just realised it didn’t edit out “French” apologies. - I did this so all the set out would be correct and all I would need to change was the information (save me some time and it would look the same) Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Further evidence of either monumental cluelessness or trolling can be seen at User_talk:Wiki_Facts_fixer#Proposed_deletion_of_Tarık_Biberovic. where Wiki Facts fixer responded to a perfectly reasonable request for a source for the statement in the Biberovic biography of the article subject having 'Turkish parents' by accusing me of 'bias', along with irrelevance about me not being able to read Turkish. Irrelevant, since no source in any language was being provided. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I can’t believe this, I have literally been on a HELP PAGE to sort this issue out, why are you trying to gain every support against me for having an error however everyone else is respecting it, please just leave me alone or put something else on my talk page instead of spamming the same thing I can’t bring you something if there’s an error in my system Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Are you seriously asking people to believe that someone capable of creating an entire correctly-formatted (if unsourced) table containing full details for the Turkish national basketball team roster [12] is incapable of posting a bare URL on a talk page? The source clearly does not exist except in your imagination. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
yes because ALL DAY I have been trying to sort this issue, we were even discussing this on my talk page and on a help page before you turned up. I get a long pause when I click publish and following this the exact message I get for my sourcing and link posting is “error edit not saved”. How many times do I need to tell you this??? Just leave me alone I don’t need to tell you 20 times. You don’t care about improving the site you want to rally against me. It’s so evident, I ask you to find out what’s wrong the the Fenerbahçe page and you say “I’m not wasting my time” if you cared about sourcing and the site being prefect you would go check, however when we look at your contributions they are all about me and my edits straight after I do them. You must be sat there refreshing my page. You care more about me than site improvements “I’m not wasting my time” literally proves this.. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Facts fixer (talk) and if you look at the Turkish national team page, I needed help to fix that page aswell I didn’t do it correctly fully. I literally have only just started creating pages and making edits the size of the Turkish NT. I’m brand new to these types of edits the Turkish NT was my first one Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

What is the name of the website where you found the information that Biberovic's parents were Turkish? 86.134.76.164 (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
find it yourself, all day you’ve spammed me and told me I’m wrong when you can’t read Turkish, find the website yourself why should I “waste my time” when it’s not on Biberovic’s page anymore. You’ll only find a way to tell me I’m wrong like you have been all day for multiple things. If you respected me today instead of aggressive behaviour “i suggest you find it quickly” then I would get you it,but since you can evidently can read Turkish from how you’ve reacted today, then you are capable of finding it yourself Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
No, I am not going to waste any further time looking for imaginary sources. You have repeatedly claimed to have one, but refuse to provide even the slightest evidence that it exists. It quite clearly doesn't. And nothing you have done deserves 'respect'. For that, you need to show honesty, and a willingness to cooperate with others along with a willingness to edit according to Wikipedia policies. Instead you do nothing but come up with endless pathetic excuses, and complaints about being picked on. Well yes, you are being picked on, quite rightly. Because you fail to respect Wikipedia contributors, Wikipedia readers, and the people you insist on labelling by nationality despite having no evidence at all to justify it. Why should anyone 'respect' that? If you want respect, do something to earn it. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

LOL just block, CIR, and blatant troll. Neil S. Walker (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Firstly just get off my talk page. I’m almost certain you are a Sockpuppet no account no edits except for going at me there’s no way anybody would do that. All I have done today is make a page which was missing, but you spam me all day about information which no longer exists on that page! The page has even be accepted and verified. There isn’t any other editor on here speaking to me like I am worthless and like I’m a bad person, everybody who has disagreed with me have spoke to me respectfully. You don’t care for this website you care about fighting me, go do some useful edits. I made a page that was missing, at this rate I would vote myself out of here an entire day of being spammed and constant notifications is a JOKE!!! How dare you say I can’t cooperate when all day you’ve been the one attacking and harassing me, get off my talk page. You talk about policies, Wikipedia says when people have made errors on their page when they’re new to it to not use it against them and to assist them something to have NOT been doing! You don’t even edit anything how are you not bored refreshing my page for these last few days waiting for me to do something else - look at the state of your contribution section! Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I’m now a troll for CREATING A MISSING PAGE THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE. USERS EVEN ACCEPTED THIS PAGE. Honestly if spamming my account is what this takes then just block me, my first ever page creation and this is how I am treated honestly why should even bother with an account, you may aswell ban me anything I do is challenged and I’m sick of the spam. I might just deactivate my own account, I’m sick of being spammed when it’s my first attempt at creating a page Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No. Creating a needed article isn't trolling. Doing exactly what you have been told not to do, repeatedly, by multiple contributors, certainly looks like trolling though. You were told, multiple times, that when you state someone's nationality in an article, you need a source. You created an article, stating that Biberovic's parents were Turkish, and provided no source, despite repeatedly claiming to have one. From your recent post on your talk page, it is apparent that at no time have you ever had such a source [13] Instead, you have based the edit on exactly the original research that you have been repeatedly told isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. That isn't 'cooperation', it is either trolling, or a sheer inability to understand a simple requirement. So yes, I suggest you 'deactivate' your account, and take your obsession with imposing Turkish nationality on people based on the flimsiest of evidence elsewhere. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I have already sourced his Turkish nationality and it has been accepted what an earth are you on about.... Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
how was your Saturday was it enjoyable refreshing my page? Or should I ask how was your week you’re a Sockpuppet, sat there all week refreshing my page. Enjoy yourself, watch some TV, who am I to you. I was supposed to be enjoying my Saturday with my family however I’ve had my entire day being spammed by you with constant notifications, every single person assisted me and nobody acted like this, that point was removed long ago and his Turkish nationality is sourced....100% you are a Sockpuppet Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

My obsession with Turkish nationality??? This whole page is relevant to UDOH and his NIGERIAN/AMERICAN nationality. But you stalk me so much you harass my first page and claim I’m obsessed. Since Tolgay Arslan find me any inaccurate Turkish nationality, Toglay Arslan was my first proper edit. Sockpuppet....Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyone reading this train-wreck should note that the Tarık_Biberovic article cites only two sources for anything. One of the sources cited states that he is of Turkish nationality, [14] while the other [15] says 'BIH' - which is the conventional abbreviation for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Perhaps he has taken Turkish nationality. Or perhaps he has the nationality one might expect from his place of birth. Perhaps he has dual nationality. Without properly-sourced clarification, the article shouldn't say one way or another. Though I doubt that Wiki Facts fixer would be happy with that, given his obsession with imposing Turkish nationality on the flimsiest of evidence. 86.134.76.164 (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed[edit]

I have read the above thread, and looked over WikiFactChecker's contributions, as well as the SPI. There is much concerning content there. I am not going to render any decision as to whether there is community support for a ban (either total or topic), nor will I close the above discussion in case the community wants to come to a consensus. Rather, I have chosen to unilaterally indef WFC for this edit. It did occur several months ago, but it is the type of edit (actually several edits, and a revert or two) that should be tolerated exactly zero times. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Note that 20 minutes after Wiki Fact Fixer was indefed, a new account User:Cold Mustard was created and started editing Tarık Biberovic to put back some of Wiki Fact Fixer's edits. I've created a Sockpuppet investigation for this case, but it seems very likely to me that this is the same user. Railfan23 (talk) 00:32, 25 August 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.

Name-removing disruptive user from St. Petersburg[edit]

Maybe this is common knowledge already, but a user on various dynamic IPs that geolocate to St. Petersburg has been systematically removing names from a large number of biography articles, despite numerous warnings and reverts. The name is removed from the beginning of sentences, often in the "Early life" section, typically changing for example "Anderson was born in..." to simply "Was born in...", leaving a grammatically incorrect sentence fragment with no subject. Names are also removed from photo captions. They don't seem to do anything else but this.

There have been many warnings for vandalism and disruption: User talk:178.70.168.215, User talk:91.122.184.163, User talk:178.70.36.51, etc., that have been ignored. I haven't found any blocks, but they rarely make more than a few edits from one IP.

Recent IPs include: Special:Contributions/178.70.30.163 (today), Special:Contributions/92.100.80.238, Special:Contributions/92.101.206.160, Special:Contributions/78.37.161.147, Special:Contributions/178.66.212.9, and many others. The edits go back at least to 2018, and possibly as far as 2016 or earlier: Special:Contributions/178.70.46.116.

I've been searching for insource:"early life was born" or insource:"biography was born", etc., and reverting those, but it doesn't catch them all. I've found many of the older edits have not been cleaned up in the past. Not sure what else can be done, blocks or rangeblocks I guess aren't feasible. Maybe some kind of edit filter or tag to help flag them could be implemented? --IamNotU (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I would try asking at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. It sounds like an edit filter that caught the change from " was born" to "Was born" would work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
But that wouldn't catch similar edits like this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Is there a chance that the user's simply not familiar with our style? The Russian Wikipedia uses a very different style for biographies that's not pure prose; I picked a random Russian philosopher and ended up at Fyodor Shcherbatskoy, whose Russian article begins as follows:
Extended content

Russian original: Фёдор Ипполи́тович Щербатско́й (Щербатский) (19 сентября[2] 1866, Кельце, Царство Польское — 18 марта 1942, Боровое, Акмолинская область, Казахская ССР) — русский и советский востоковед (буддолог, индолог и тибетолог), академик Российской академии наук (1918). Один из основателей русской школы буддологии. Перевёл и издал ряд памятников санскритской и тибетской литературы. Почётный член научных обществ Великобритании, Германии, Франции.

Google Translate rendition of original: Fedor Ippolitovich Shcherbatsky (Shcherbatsky) (September 19, 1866, Kielce, Kingdom of Poland - March 18, 1942, Borovoye, Akmola Oblast, Kazakh SSR) - Russian and Soviet orientalist (Buddhist, Indologist and Tibetologist), academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1918). He translated and published a number of monuments of Sanskrit and Tibetan literature. Honorary member of the scientific societies of Great Britain, Germany, France.

Also, Russian is a Pro-drop language, in which one generally doesn't include a pronoun that's implied by the verb. (That article gives an example of good Russian sentences — six words, "I see him. He is coming.", are needed to translate the Russian "Вижу. Идёт.") In such a case, "Was born in X." would make sense when we're talking about a specific individual who's the subject of the article, if you're unintentionally importing your own language's grammar/syntax/etc. into English. So maybe this person's just trying to follow ru:wp style without understanding that we don't write that way. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I see such edits on my watchlist pretty regularly. Typically they are made by users whose native language is Russian and who have limited command in English. Note also that in Russian encyclopedias it is pretty common to drop the subject (for example, an article on XXX would say Born in YYY year, not XXX was born in YYY year), and machine translation (which is still unfortunately often used, would provide exactly this.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It's true that missing pronouns are a common mistake made by Russian speakers writing in English. But this is clearly one person on Rostelecom in St. Petersburg, who has obsessively, robotically, made the same idiosyncratic name-removing edit to probably hundreds of biography articles, for years, and it seems to be the only edit they ever make. It's often very indiscriminate, e.g.: [16] or [17]. There have been many final warnings for disruption and vandalism, but they can't be reached. One warning said: "Stop doing this. If you don't understand why your edits are being undone then you are not competent to edit in English. If you do,understand, then this is vandalism.", which I think sums it up. Whatever is going on in their mind, from malicious to clueless, is not so important - the relentless edits are harmful and disruptive. If they had an account, a stable IP, or a narrow IP range, they would have been blocked long ago for disruption, failure to communicate, and "not here".
Since neither talking nor blocking seem possible, I wondered if there was some more effective alternative to be able to prevent, flag, or search for the unhelpful edits. The normal search can find many, but it's rather limited. It seems like something that would lend itself to an automated approach, since the edits have a distinctive pattern, but I don't know that much about what's possible in that way. I can look into requesting an edit filter. --IamNotU (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Just wondering... if whoever does this is Russian, could providing a Russian translation of the warnings help them understand? Diamond Blizzard talk 17:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I've left warnings on the talk page of this morning's IP, saying "Хватит удалять имена из биографий! Stop removing names from biographies!". I would think that if they're able to navigate English Wikipedia well enough to make these edits, they'd be capable of putting the warnings into Google Translate themselves, but I suppose it's worth a try. I've also changed the section title here from "vandal" to "disruptive user", since it's possible they believe they're helping.
I've been doing some more cleanup, and it looks like there are actually possibilities for blocks on these ranges for the most recent edits: Special:Contributions/78.37.160.0/20 and Special:Contributions/92.100.80.0/20; those seem to contain all their edits out of the /16 ranges, and almost exclusively theirs since January. The other ranges I've found them in are these, not sure yet if there might be narrower ranges within them:
There really are hundreds of these same edits, and it's continuing on a daily basis. It also looks like they might sometimes make small edits to articles about cartoons, e.g. Special:Contributions/178.70.28.51, though so far I can't tell for sure if it's the same person. --IamNotU (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, I can start us off with range blocks on the /20s. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
After skimming through the /16s listed above, the IP ranges where I see this editor active are:
Assuming, of course, that the ISP breaks things down into /20s, which seems entirely possible. I range blocked a few more that have been active recently and have very little apparent collateral damage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the blocks, and for pointing out the sub-ranges, that should make cleaning it up easier! --IamNotU (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate, today they're back on Special:Contributions/178.67.181.183, so I guess, Special:Contributions/178.67.176.0/20? There were also some edits there in May. --IamNotU (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I blocked the IP a few days, which might be enough. Given of the lack of disruption on other IPs from that range, I have to wonder if maybe I was wrong. I guess we'll see, but I really hope it's not randomly spread throughout /16s and /17s. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
They were back today, from Special:Contributions/178.70.160.0/20 again. It looks like their IP changes once (and only once) a day, so no point in blocking individual ones I guess. Each day they can jump between any of the seven /16s (or not). But within those, I don't think it's totally random. I've only found them on one or two /20s in each, except for the last one 178.70.*, there are several. For example though, there's another very prolific IP who does Indian film related edits in the same /16s, but I don't think I've seen them on the same /20. But I could be seeing patterns that aren't really there... --IamNotU (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock Request[edit]

Hi,

We're getting a hoard of IPs making extremely similar edits to The Fighter and the Kid. I've put in a RFPP (now handled), but I was wondering whether someone skilled with rangeblocks could take a look and see if there's anything they can do on their side to make sure the editor side of the issue is handled.

History link

IPs:

  1. 82.39.250.181
  2. 2600:100C:B021:6287:7934:57C5:BBC3:B830
  3. 192.197.178.2
  4. 170.232.227.220
  5. 2602:306:CFD1:6310:6C6E:1F09:E951:49E7

Cheers, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately those IPs are all off on their own — they don't form any ranges, and they're all over the map — US, Canada, the UK. The article has now been semiprotected for a week, so I hope they get bored. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC).

Occupation of Poland (1939-1945)[edit]

Account reported has been blocked in connection to these events and for block evasion. If any more issues present themselves, please do not hesitate to re-open this report or file a new one. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:35, 25 August 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 IP user reported has been blocked for 31 hours. If disruption continues after the block expires, please file another report here and we'll be happy to look into the matter and handle it. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:45, 25 August 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 IP editor User:68.50.40.47 is removing sourced material from this article without a consensus to do so. The material has been discussed on the talk page, with some interest in altering or rewriting it in some way (see this), but there was definitely no consensus to remove it. I notified that IP on both my and their talk page that they need a consensus to remove sourced material. But they went ahead and removed it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Usually we have an escalating set of warnings we give new editors, rather than jumping straight to final warning and AN/I. Try that instead, and maybe elicit some talk along the way? Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
This is clearly not a new editor, don't be silly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The IP admits here that they started editing in 2003. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The content discussion that User:Beyond My Ken cites is 5 years stale and ended due to a lack of interest. If my Bold edit re-ignites an interest in that discussion, I welcome it. But so far User:Beyond My Ken has only edit warred and has specifically refused to participate in that discussion. There is no interest in having the discussion, and the material that I removed is facially incorrect. 68.50.40.47 (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah, BRD: You make a BOLD edit, I REVERT it, then you start a DISCUSSION in order to get a consensus for your bold edit. Please go start that discussion, so that other editors of the page can decide whether they agree with your edit. Per WP:STATUSQUO, the article stays in the status quo ante while discussions take place, so before you start the discussion you need to have please revert your last edit and leave the article as it was for the last 5 years, before you ulilatreally decided it was "unambiguously wrong" [18] and deleted it, despite it being sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Here's the way the IP interprets the situation on their talk page:

    I can't believe some dickhead wanted to edit war with me but thought he would win despite expressing a consistent disinterest in discussing the material. Went so far as to repeatedly tell me that editing without discussion is wrong, but wouldn't relent on his insistence on not discussing. The point of wikipedia is the content. If you don't care about the content, don't edit. Someone who cares about the content may someday come along and reverse my edits, and add to the discussion. I may lose the discussion. I think that'll be lame but at least it'll compatible with BRD. [19]

    So, in the IP's point of view, they can delete anything they want from any article, as long as they know that it's wrong, and not be responsbile for discussing it when they're challenged. Maybe, someday, someone will come along who they'll agree to discuss it with, but in the meantime their edit stays in place. And that, they believe, is consonant with BRD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I feel like I'm repeating myself, so sorry to waste anyone's time.... If someone challenges one of my edits on content grounds I am eager to listen, and willing to accept that such a challenge may prevail even if I disagree with it. That hasn't happened here. 68.50.40.47 (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I have blocked the IP for 31 hours for the personal attack. Feel free to revert the IP's addition and bring the article to the state where it was; however, the IP has joined discussions on the talk page that you started. Once they are unblocked, encourage those discussions. If the IP edit wars again, please come back. Thanks, Lourdes 06:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, I will. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:05, 25 August 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.
  • @Oshwah, Lourdes, and 331dot: Unfortunately, I have to reopen this. The IP, 68.50.40.47, which was blocked by Lourdes for 31 hours, and had the block extended to 2 weeks by 331dot, claimed on their talk page to have the sccount User:Galexander. [20]. If that is true, then the editor who was using that IP has now signed on and has edited as Galexander. They left a comment on Talk:Occupation of Poland (1939-1945) [21], and then deleted a comment of mine on the same page [22]. The deletion is, of course, a violation of WP:TPO, but the comment creates the illusion that there are two different people in the discussion, the IP and Galexander. Galexander even referred to the IP in the third person. Both of the edits are, obviously, block evasion, since the block is for the editor, and not the IP/account.
    Of course, the IP could have been dissembling in saying that Galexander is their account, so it may be necessary for a CheckUser for verify that. Because of that I am tagging this as Checkuser needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-closing, I have struck one of my comments above, as it was in error, and I don't want the record to be incorrect. Galexander did not delete one of my comments, he deleted a comment they made while editing as an IP, which had a very similar opening to a comment of mine later on the page. I regret the error, and have apologized to Galexander on their talk page. So there was no violation of P:TPO but the rest of my comment stands. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In an abundance of caution, even though I'm fairly certain that Galexander is the IP editor, I have notified Galexander of this report on their talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I',m sorry, I should also have pinged Deepfriedokra, who was involved in turning down the IPs first unblock request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Block evasion confirmed noting their admission to their account. Respective blocks reset to one month.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken - Thanks for re-opening this discussion and for letting us know about the account. I'm glad that the issue was quickly handled. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:35, 25 August 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.

2405:9800:BA30:C21A:B401:FE10:B77F:3D57[edit]

I don't know what the complaint was here but the IP /64 has been blocked for three months, and the pages they created have been removed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi! 2405:9800:BA30:C21A:B401:FE10:B77F:3D57. The IP address 2405:9800:BA30:C21A:B401:FE10:B77F:3D57 (talk) got the new messages up from the talk page! 2405:9800:BA30:C21A:B401:FE10:B77F:3D57 (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

As well as message posted like this:

Information icon Hello, I'm Sakura Cartelet. An edit that you recently made to C19H15Cl2O4 seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Sakura CarteletTalk 05:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Per this message, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
The main part of the warning was this edit which looked like a test edit to me. Sakura CarteletTalk 05:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop nominating pages for speedy deletion unless they actually meet the criteria listed at WP:CSD. The redirects you nominated did not fit the categories of nonsense, vandalism (except the edits done by you) or uncontroversial maintenance, respectively. Thanks. decltype (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It is also rather strange and alarming that this user created the redirect Draft:Harassing Hell, then went on to nominate it at RfD (Special:Diff/912386959), place a notice of said RfD on their talkpage (Special:Diff/912386592), and !vote twice in the RfD. This ANI thread also appears to be initiated by this user, who again placed a notification template on their talkpage (Special:Diff/912385823). Is this a test in enacting process, or is it a novel form of intended humor or disruptive editing? ComplexRational (talk) 10:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: This section was made by the ip editor above copy/pasting the conversation on their talk page here. This was not someone bringing this issue here, this was an ip editor showing gross incompetence by copy/pasting their talk page onto ANI. I don't know what you're expecting to happen. 97.113.253.9 (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2405:9800:BA30:C21A:B401:FE10:B77F:3D57#August_2019 Also they were blocked for 3 months so... case closed? 97.113.253.9 (talk) 06:43, 26 August 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.

DRN referral ~ editor User:Barwick, behavioral issues ~ Not here to build an encyclopedia[edit]

User is indeffed and also topic-banned from post-1932 American politics for good measure. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:24, 26 August 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 add the closing recommendations from the DRN referring the user here;
"In looking into this filing it has become clear there is no dispute but there was disruption and an admittance by the filing editor of simply trying to make a point. DRN referral to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is recommended for User:Barwick for the following behavioral issues; Disruptive editing on the talk page and article as well as disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point, continued violations of the talk page guidelines, possible attempt to game the system and not being here to build an encyclopedia."

On 22 August 2019 User:Barwick initiated a DRN filing for the article Oath Keepers dif and listed a number of other editors that turned out to have nothing to do with an actual content dispute but seemed to be entirely Barwick edit warring by continuously re-opening a closed edit request that had been denied 1, 2, 3 and 4.

User:Acroterion left a warning about sanctions imposed on post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related articles [23]. Barwick then received a warning from user:Deacon Vorbis about the talk page being for discussion of improving the article and not the general discussion of the topic.[24] He then received a note from user:Doug Weller, again about discretionary sanctions.[25] He next received another warning from user:Drmies for NOTFORUM. [26]. Barwick's response was; "I suggest you stop threatening me with wikipedia warnings and all your wikipedia rules. I spend virtually zero of my life dealing with the sea of rules on this website. So people like you threatening me with random consequences for something I have no clue what in the world those "notices" even mean, really doesn't scare me." [27]

In the DRN User:Robert McClenon asked the editor if this was a "One against the many" dispute where Barwick's reply admitted to simply trying to make a point; "This is in essence many people very unfamiliar with Wikipedia (myself included) attempting to make a point to people familiar with Wikipedia. Those familiar with Wikipedia have accurately pointed out that Wikipedia uses "reliable sources". I have pointed out to them that this is in fact impossible to do for two reasons. 1) Oath Keepers is a small enough organization that no major media bothers replying to slander about them (which accusing them of being "anti-Government" is). And 2) Claiming that in lieu of "reliable sources", I must then prove that they are not "anti-Government", effectively asking me to prove a negative, which is virtually impossible to do (I'm a computer scientist, trust me, I know logic proofs)".

While Barwick has been with Wikipedia as a registered editor since 2005, he has less than 400 edits. I make no recommendation as to how to discourage this behavior only that this venue is the correct noticeboard for this issue and editor. Thank you and Aloha!--Mark Miller (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I had assumed that User:Barwick was acting in good faith but being tendentious,as is the case with some DRN filers, and was trying to use DRN to continue to argue their case after being in the minority. But it seems that Barwick didn't really want to resolve a dispute, even stubbornly. Now that Barwick is here, were they trying to contribute to the encyclopedia, or were they trolling? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
My view is similar to Robert McClenon's, that Barwick is a sincere but tendentious editor. This isn't an unusual circumstance, where new or infrequently active editors show up to argue that a fringe group's self-description is to be accepted without question in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary in the kind of sources that Wikipedia explicitly relies upon - we see that on many articles about the extremes of politics, 9/11-related topics, Gamergate-related and others. Barwick's editing history shows periodic events of this kind, such as arguments about pseudoscience, Obama's birth, abortion, and ozone depletion. I was going to propose a politics topic ban, but given their history I'm not convinced that that will help. Acroterion (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Mark Miller: I've notified Barwick of this discussion. Please don't forget to do that when you start an ANI thread about someone. Acroterion (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I knew I was forgetting something ~ notifications.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This appears to be basically the same set of arguments that Barwick used when they were last active on Wikipedia, in this discussion from 8 years ago. Barwick is in effect arguing, again, that because the consensus of high quality mainstream scientific and media sources does not align with their personal beliefs, that all of the many sources are biased, despite not being able to provide any suitable sources whatsoever to back up their own point of view. The "point" they're trying to prove is incompatible with the purpose of an encyclopedia. There's nothing special about this case, they're simply not here to build an encyclopedia but to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to advocate their own beliefs. I was about to block them indefinitely, but per Acroterion's note above which I conflicted with, I'll leave this for others' input. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, they do seem to have a knack for finding topics to argue about that have discretionary sanctions associated with them - perhaps not tree-shaping, but four five others. Based in my review of their history, more than 80% of their edits have involved the problems Ivanvector has pointed out, and it is my impression that they're only here to argue. Acroterion (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)0
I'm not saying that a topic ban (or indef) wouldn't be inappropriate, but I don't recall a topic ban ever being implemented without community discussion. Is there precedent for this? GiantSnowman 21:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Topic bans by one uninvolved administrator are a feature of ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Indefs without community discussion are done all the time for vandals, etc. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
My own interpretation of this user is that they are more like a troll than like a POV-warrior. Just my opinion. Do not feed them. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This is a topic ban per ArbCom discretionary sanctions, Giant, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. They're given out per the discretion of a single admin, and only in areas that ArbCom has placed under DS, in this case post-1932 American politics. Community topic bans are something else, and they do indeed require full discussion and consensus here or at AN. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC).
@Bishonen: - you learn something new every day, thanks! GiantSnowman 08:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey kids, you don't have to worry about banning me, this place disgusts me... I'll copy/paste this post here also

With what minimal respect I can muster for this debacle of a webpage they call Wikipedia, the blatant bias Wikipedia has demonstrated countless times in the past against conservative viewpoints, is *the* exact reason I haven't wasted my time with this trash heap in, um... 10 years? I'm unsurprised to see it hasn't changed a bit. A bunch of liberals flaunting rules they themselves came up with to protect their ideological viewpoint from anyone who would dare have a different opinion.

"Tolerance"... of everyone except those who disagree with you. And point to the self-made rules to justify your reasoning.

Oh, and then threaten people with "sanctions" (ooooooooooh). Tell you what... stuff it, you and your webpage. I'm out of here.

(Personal attack removed). Here are the last 4 tildes I'll ever grace this place with, signing off... Barwick (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. Hope you take some time and rethinkLightburst (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
And with this edit, I'd say it's time to indef. - Frood (talk!) 02:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed as nothere, and looking back at his contributions it is clear that barwick has always been nothere. To be clear, the disconnect between Barwick's view of the situation and everyone else's, is that Barwick assumes that every warning he has ever received was motivated by his viewpoint and not his behavior. It's a tribal mindset that is incompatible with a collaborative project. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:40, 26 August 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.

Continued disruptive editing by User:Hispalois in Catalans over the term "ethnic group"[edit]

(non-admin closure) Indeffed by RexxS. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 02:40, 26 August 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.

Page: Catalans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hispalois (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Catalans is one of the hundreds of articles that exist on Wikipedia about an ethnic group, being considered a high-importance ethnic group article according to the WikiProject Ethnic Groups. Like the rest of articles on ethnic groups, it makes use of the template:Infobox ethnic group, it's categorized in the pertinent ethnic groups' categories (4 of them), it's included in the list of contemporary ethnic groups, and the lead section follows the same standard style: defining them as an ethnic group, stating the group they belong to (Romance), and what is their native land. There are hundreds of examples in Wikipedia on the same topic that are exactly the same as Catalans: Galicians, Basques, Occitans, Germans, Bretons, Swedes, Waloons, Italians, Frenchs, Sardinians, Greeks, Irish people, Scottish people, Hungarians, Poles, et cetera. The reference to "ethnic group" in Catalans is backed by numerous reliable sources present in the article, in addition to others that are not included (Encyclopædia Britannica: ethnic composition, Catalonian).

Catalans has had a long-standing stable lead section for many years, defining it as an ethnic group without disputes (see 2012 version, 2015 version or 2017 version). Rarely, a user could come to vandalize the article by deleting the word ethnic group there and in other articles, but his editions were quickly reverted (in this case, the user was banned and also his sockpuppets).

That was the case until 29 September 2018, when User:Hispalois came to the article for the first time and unilaterally deleted the words "ethnic group", among other disruptive and controversial edits that were later reverted by other users. The original version was eventually restored by several users.
However, on 28 June 2019 User:Hispalois came back doing it again. While also removing sources and insisting on other disruptive edits that other users had already reverted him in the past. Here is when I, User:Beethoven, arrived to the article for the first time. After seeing what he did, I proceeded to restore the original version (10 July 2019).

Then a discussion started between me and User:Hispalois in Talk:Catalans. At the beginning, he was only asking for sources backing the term "ethnic group" (13 July 2019): "needs to be backed by reliable sources. The book by Minahan does not use the term so it does not back up the claim. Pending new sources, I am going to add a citationrequired template to the statement on Catalans being an ethnic group. I am specifically asking for at least one reliable source that applies the term to Catalans." That same day, I fulfilled his request and added several reliable sources to the article where Catalans are identified as an ethnic group. That same day, he thanked me for my edit.

At this point, the discussion seemed over and the problem solved. But weeks later, User:Hispalois came back again doing unilateral edits on the lead section (30 July 2019). I then restored the original version, telling him that we had already discussed this in talk page weeks ago. He then argued that "the discussion was still open", so I encouraged him to expose what were now his intentions first in the talk page (8 August 2019). His argument can be summed up in that he doesn't like ethnic groups, in general. In his argument he presented his opinions about ethnic groups, exposed different definitions of ethnic groups and even presented the opinion of Max Weber about ethnicities. Even though none of this related with Catalans whatsoever. I explained to him that his opinion on ethnic groups is fine, as is that of Max Weber or other historic figures, but that this page (Catalans) is not the place to discuss all of this. His opinions or criticisms against ethnic groups could have a place in Talk:Ethnic group. He might even try to create a "Criticism section" in ethnic group to include different views about ethnicities, if he finds the sources to do so. But Catalans is not the place to discuss about opinions on ethnic groups, in the same way that it is not the place to do so in Latvians, Flemings or any other individual ethnic group. I don't know why of all the articles about ethnic groups he picked the article Catalans to start this, because his arguments had no relation with Catalans or any other particular ethnic group. Nor did he explain why Catalans should be different from the rest of ethnic groups' articles.
Then, out of nowhere, that same day he added a maintenance template on the article stating that this article's factual accuracy is disputed. That template doesn't belong here, because we are not having a dispute on the accuracy of the article nor looking for reliable sources. Because the reliable sources were added almost a month ago, when User:Hispalois asked for them and he later thanked me for including them. This issue had already been solved. So, adding this maintenance template in the article just because User:Hispalois doesn't like the word "ethnic group" doesn't show good behavior. Should we add this template in all the hundreds of articles on ethnic groups just because the word "ethnic group" is present in the article? In Sicilians, Romanians and so on? The word "ethnic group" makes one article inaccurate? Of course not.

We then continued discussing in Talk:Catalans, where I answered all his questions and addressed his other points. Until my last message in that talk page (12 August 2019). The discussion ended there and he never replied. Finally now, the discussion seemed over. Therefore, some days later I removed the maintenance template that shouldn't have been placed there in the first place (17 August 2019). However, a week later he came back once again to introduce that template in the article about the factual accuracy (24 August 2019), without bothering to say anything in talk page. Unfortunately, when doing that "Undo", he didn't even care to notice that while doing so he was also removing the edits I had made on some existing sources just to include more parameters. Yesterday I pointed all of this to him, reminding him that he had deleted text when doing that revert. I encouraged him once again to bring his opinions about ethnic groups to the pertinent place. However, today he reverted me again, without bothering to care about anything I told him.

At this point I come here because I no longer know how to deal with him. His last message in Talk:Catalans is from 12 August 2019. He's not interested in discussing anything and simply ignores what I tell him. His behavior has become really disrupting now and close to edit warring. It's clear that this user has very strong opinions about ethnic groups. And I already told him of a place where he can express his opinions, be it in a personal blog, in Wikipedia's Talk:Ethnic group or in the ethnic group article if he manages to find sources. But he simply ignores what I say, and seems obsessed with expressing his personal opinion only in Catalans. --Beethoven (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there any chance we could get a tl;dr summary here? I've tried, and failed, to discern exactly what's going on here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
TL;DR: User:Hispalois doesn't like the word "ethnic group" being in the article Catalans, because he doesn't like the general concept/existence of ethnic groups. Since September 2018, he has been removing it from the article multiple times. And every time he removed it, his version was reverted by other users, thus restoring the original version (with the word "ethnic group") which has a years-long-standing consensus and follows the same style as the other ethnic groups articles (which obviously include that word). Recently, he has continued to insist on imposing his opinion, while resorting to a more clear disruptive-editing-behavior and edit-warring. He doesn't bother to discuss anymore and refuses to get the point. It seems he just wants to perpetuate a conflict for no apparent reason, which shouldn't be taking place in that page in the first place. --Beethoven (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Its likely more simple than that. Hispalois is a Spaniard who doesnt agree with Catalan independence. The repeated removal of ethnic distinctiveness is the the giveaway - its common in other ethnic groups on ENWP when one side wants to deny the individuality of the other in defiance of sourcing to the contrary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Hispalois indefinitely for disruptive editing. They can of course appeal that if they can convince another uninvolved admin that they won't repeat the behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 25 August 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.

Suspicious?[edit]