Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive909

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:STSC and WP:NOTHERE[edit]

STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is basically a pusher of the POV of the viewpoint of the government of the People's Republic of China. Almost every edit done by this user is misleading, with misleading edit summaries (such as using the edit summary "ce" while censoring negative information about the PRC government or other related topics, subtle changes to the text that affects the meanings, removal of sourced content, etc. As an example, what is this?) Really, almost every single edit by this user is problematic; search the archives for previous discussion about this user. This has been a long-term issue; editors have been frustrated with this user's refusal to discuss or cooperate, or even left because of this user. Often when other editors revert POV-pushing edits by STSC, STSC reports these users to WP:AN3. STSC has been warned frequently in the past, and has a history of blocks and topic bans. I think that an indef block may be appropriate in this situation. Pinging Citobun, Signedzzz, and Ohconfucius, who are more familiar with this editor than I am. sst✈(discuss) 12:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I strongly agree with the above assessment. I'm away from the computer and my phone is nearly out of battery so I’ll keep it short for now and elaborate with diffs tomorrow. STSC is a long-term, relatively low-key political agenda editor whose activity here (for years) nearly exclusively serves to parrot the viewpoint of the Chinese government. My interest on Wikipedia mainly centres around Hong Kong and this is the context in which I have encountered STSC but I know he is active in every modern controversial Chinese subject - Falun Gong, military history, etc. He censors and edits disruptively which he conceals using deceptive edit summaries like the innocuous “c/e”. If challenged or reverted he begins revert warring to enforce his edit and bullies other users by frivolously spamming their talk pages with warning templates. When asked to defend a particular edit his reasoning generally doesn't hold water but he will revert and revert until other editors are worn out. I try hard now to avoid interacting with him/her.
The only reason STSC hasn't been banned to date is that he is relatively low-key and does his work over a long period of time. But this type of agenda editing is most damaging to the encyclopedia as it is not blatant and hence not so easy to fight. Citobun (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I guess we've been very luck here up to now in not having to deal with the Wumao. Life will never be the same again as our vigilance will have to be elevated. As I'm burnt out from conflicts over FLG orthodoxy, I'll leave the Falun Gong articles up to others. -- Ohc ¡digame! 19:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a few other examples of misconduct - a very small sample, relative to his PROLIFIC agenda editing on Hong Kong-related articles, not to speak of all his other China-related editing.

I dunno, I could go on. I have spent an hour compiling this but I could go on all night. This is not at all a comprehensive view of his advocacy here, and I strongly request an admin take a serious look at his editing history. It speaks for itself. As you can see, when it comes to Hong Kong STSC's edits entirely centre around a number of themes: downplaying the reasons behind the 2014 pro-democracy protests; downplaying Hong Kong's heritage as a British colony; excessively promoting Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong; downplaying Hong Kong's autonomy under one country, two systems; promoting the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison; promoting Japanese war atrocities in Hong Kong; bullying others by accusing them of personal attacks when they question his editing; bullying others through frivolous and improper use of talk page warning templates; making misleading edit summaries on a serial basis despite being warned for this repeatedly.

STSC is highly adept at working within the bounds of Wikipedia conventions, never pushing the envelope too far, but ultimately shows no respect for the concepts of impartiality and balance and is not here to build an encyclopedia. I am tired of seeing him undermine the impartiality of Hong Kong and China-related articles – his edit history speaks for itself. I am tired of him enforcing his political activism and political censorship through blunt force reverting and frivolous, bullying use of warning templates in mine and other's talk pages. It is really exhausting and I considered quitting Wikipedia back when he was censoring photos I had taken of the protests specifically for Wikipedia. Paging another potentially interested editor TheBlueCanoe. Citobun (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have much to add, other than to say that I agree with the assessments offered above. STSC is careful not to step too far out of bounds (i.e. constantly involved in edit wars, but no obvious 3RR violations), but the cumulative effect of the edits is clearly disruptive, and intended to advance some kind of quasi-nationalist agenda. I've also noted the user's tendency to try to provoke and needle his opponents, leave frivolous warning templates on others' pages, and use innocuous/misleading edit summaries to conceal clear POV edits([1][2][3][4][5]). Since one of the affected topic areas (Falun Gong) falls under discretionary sanctions, I've considered bringing this up in arbitration enforcement, but given the broader scope of problematic editing maybe this is the better forum to deal with it.TheBlueCanoe 18:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I've noticed that all commenters save the OP were notified of this complaint via ping, and I believe pinging like-minded editors in disputes could be construed as WP:CANVASSING. -Zanhe (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the stance of the editors I pinged; I only pinged editors who I see were involved with STSC in the past. Zanhe, I am rather surprised that you don't find STSC's edits disruptive. sst✈(discuss) 10:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I never said STSC's edits were or were not disruptive. I haven't had enough interaction with him to make a judgment (but I do recognize Ohconfucius and you as respectable, constructive editors). All I was trying to say is that it's better to present the evidence here and let uninvolved administrators judge its merit, instead of selectively notifying previously involved people. -Zanhe (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No action, seriously? sst✈(discuss) 14:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to see a statement from STSC. Also, pinging is not considered appropriate notification as pings can sometimes fail.

I was caught out once. A ping is only successful if you type in the username correctly and sign the post. If you go back and edit it to complete the ping, it won't work. However, I do see that you posted an ANI notification on their TP in any case. Blackmane (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I don't know this user SSTflyer, I have never had any interaction with him. If there's any issue with me, he should have discussed with me in my Talk page. This is just a case of childish hate campaign to discredit another user on personal or political reasons, and it's a pack of lies, e.g. "STSC has a history of blocks and topic bans", etc. I have had opponents in content disputes when I tried to maintain a balanced view in articles, and it's not surprising some of them would want to join in this. There's nothing I need to defend the way I edit in my near 10 years on Wiki; that's why I just could not be bothered to reply to these ridiculous false accusations. STSC (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This is typical. When faced with grievances over content, STSC throws around accusations of a "hate campaign" for "personal reasons" and otherwise avoids at all costs addressing valid concerns over his/her POV editing. I and others have attempted to reason with you on talk pages countless times and it goes nowhere – your enforce your POV and censorship in an uncompromising, bullying manner. Deleting photographs and well-sourced material from pages does not constitute "maintaining a balanced point of view" – it is politically-driven censorship. Citobun (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't lie, we had the 3rd opinion on the image deletion issue and the neutral user agreed to the deletion. On other issues you alone just could not accept other users who have different views from yours and you continue to hold grudges. STSC (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The outcome of that particular instance doesn't change the fact that you frequently censor images for political reasons. For example: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. Accusing others of not accepting different political views is really pot calling the kettle black. I'm not the one blanking and censoring sourced material for political reasons. Citobun (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Not at all censoring and there're good reasons for these edits. Why just brought them on here now if you disputed these edits? Up to now you still could not accept the 3rd opinion on the images in the Hong Kong articles, and it's rather sad you still harbour a long-term grudge against me based on the content disputes in 2014. STSC (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It is not a question of a "long-term grudge", but rather your own long-term WP:ADVOCACY. Citobun (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
You have jumped on every opportunity to use false accusations to discredit other editors. I've seen this all before. STSC (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The nice thing about Wikipedia is that our respective contributions are there for all to see and scrutinize. So call me a liar if you like but your editing history speaks for itself. Citobun (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The bad thing is you abusing the system to harass other user. Other content disputants like user Ohconfucius have moved on since the 2014 Hong Kong protests but you're still Wikihounding your opponent out of revenge. STSC (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not "Wikihounding"...stop throwing around false accusations. We have interacted perhaps one time since the protests a year ago. I contribute now because I was asked to. Citobun (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, you're the one who has been throwing false accusations around on here. STSC (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

{Non admin view} The problem, in my eyes, is STSC's edits do look to be more aligned towards the mainland Chinese POV, but on the flip side of it the editors that are raising the complaint have an obvious pro-HK POV. No one comes here with entirely clean hands in this dispute as it's a clash of ideologies. My heritage hails from both sides of the border that once separated China from HK but I was born and raised overseas. I nonetheless have held a strong interest in the politics of the region and in my view this dispute is a manifestation of those differences. For example, prior to STSC's pruning, the 2014 protests in HK article was heavily laden with images. Far more than I would have expected to see for what was essentially a singular event. Some of the other image removals, with the rationale that STSC used do seem reasonable, but as STSC has a pro-mainland POV their image removal makes it look politically motivated. I don't really see the need for action, at this time, against either party except a requirement that WP:DRN be used more frequently. Falun Gong is a very touchy article and is subject to Arbcom discretionary sanctions. Anything that is viewed as violating the sanctions should be referred to WP:AE. Blackmane (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I must thank user Blackmane for your fair comment on this. STSC (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This is not an HK/mainland issue. My analysis of STSC's editing is skewed toward Hong Kong because that subject is a focus of my own editing and hence the context in which I have encountered him. The problem is that STSC is exclusively a pro-CCP activist editor. Meanwhile I have created articles such as 2015 Hong Kong heavy metal in drinking water incidents which reflects very badly on Hong Kong. Certainly everyone has a POV but I don't think mine is necessarily "pro HK", and more importantly I am not here for Wikipedia:Advocacy or to censor others.
Nobody, STSC included, has really addressed the problematic issues above – misleading edit summaries, censorship of reliably referenced content, refusal to discuss, refusal to cooperate, bullying use of talk page warning templates, almost exclusively agenda editing – that together amount to disruptive editing. If anyone is inclined to characterise this dispute as merely a simple clash of ideologies I would suggest you compare our edit histories side by side and note the differences in editing behavior. Additionally please note that STSC is active in all other controversial China-related subjects, not just Hong Kong and Falun Gong. Citobun (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Your POV is not necessarily "pro-HK" but certainly pro-British colonialism. Editors are free to choose any topic to edit and that's none of your business. STSC (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I am interested in Hong Kong history. I am not pro-British colonialism. Citobun (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I should have said... You're very much 'pro-British colonialism in Hong Kong', of course. STSC (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

No administrative issue here; there's a difference of opinion on emphasis which is quite subtle to outsiders. For example, a link to the article 2014 Hong Kong electoral reform without mentioning it as being "about universal suffrage" does not "censor" anything, since the linked article talks about suffrage in detail. Such a change to a summary on a different article falls within the realm of a copyedit and is not misleading.

What I do think needs to change, though, is when STSC is complaining about a personal attack, he should reference where he is being personally attacked, by using a diff like this (which took 2 seconds to find, so there's probably tons more), where Citobun calls him a "agenda editor". Anyway, these diffs are stale. Stop stoking the fire of old bad feelings. Shrigley (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The diffs I've listed are stale. But the agenda editing has continued, hence why the issue was brought here. Anyway, I am tired of bickering about this and don't really want to contribute further – but this has been a very prolonged issue and if it is not properly addressed I think it will keep reemerging. Citobun (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Citobun has the cheek to complain about "agenda editing" while he would invite Falun Gong editors to join him. That shows his hypocrisy, and basically he and SSTflyer are just trying to silence other editors who don't share their POV. STSC (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know anything about Falun Gong nor do I know who you would consider a "Falun Gong editor". Citobun (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I must congratulate you on that. STSC (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems that everyone here forgets the use of misleading edit summaries by STSC. No matter the POV, the edit summary "ce" should not be used when any meaning of the text has been changed. sst✈(discuss) 15:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - Action should be taken against user SSTflyer for abusing the ANI process to silence other editors who do not share his POV. His trick is to start an ANI with a pack of lies and then ping a selection of past content disputants to do his dirty work. The Wikipedia community must not accept this kind of disgraceful hate campaign with political motive. STSC (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
You're the one accusing other editors of being "pro-colonialism"142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
That's my response to Citobun accusing me of pro-CCP; I'm absolutely not. STSC (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

MFD's related to fair use violation claims in Timed Text[edit]

Just FYI, I WP:IAR closed an entire batch of MFD's, venue changing them to a larger discussion at WT:NFC. If you are interested in the discussion, please see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Fair-use_status_of_Timed_Text. — xaosflux Talk 04:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

repeated removal of COI and Notibilty tags on page Thomas Strudwick[edit]

Hello When I reviewed the article Thomas Strudwick on the new pages feed, I tagged the article with multiple issues including for COI and Notabilty, but one of the editors (with a possible COI) is ignoring my repeated requests to stop deleting these tags without the necesary article improvements. The whole of the page history shows up these issues. I also suspect sock-puppetry and have requested an investigation about this on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Racing25. Please can an administrator get involved here to help? Pahazzard (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no discussion on the talk page. Those tags all suggest discussion on the talk page which is pretty hard to do if you don't explain the COI issues. Notability-wise what is your concern is unclear either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Ricky81682, thanks for all your help. I'm lacking experience in the COI tagging and hadn't thought to write that up in the article talk page - I'll remember to do that in future. The notability guidance seems a bit whooly, and I'd rather tag it than not for at least getting consensus from other editors. There was sockpuppetry involved that has led to the COI accounts being blocked at present, so all fine for now. Thanks again Pahazzard (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Clear COI, in that Thomasstrudwick (talk · contribs) (now blocked) edited only Thomas Strudwick. The subject of the article is marginally notable; there's some press coverage in reliable sources [6][7], and they did win one championship race. So the article needs improvement, but probably not deletion. Attention from someone into motorcycle racing would be helpful. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit war on the history of Haiti[edit]

(non-admin closure) This is a content dispute. Please take this to the talk page of the article. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 17:42, 23 December 2015 (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 user Savvyjack23 has been attempting to censure any mention of the Haitian genocide from the article on Haiti. I request an Administrator to help mediate the situation, and take an unbiased view at the current article.

The article in question is Haiti.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haitian STEVE (talkcontribs) 17:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I've reviewed the situation and agree Savvyjack23 was correct to revert your edits. I suggest you get consensus for your controversial edits on the talk page instead of keep attempting to force it into the introduction. Number 57 18:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
If this is a content dispute, dispute resolution such as WP:3O may be helpful, assuming there's been sufficient discussion on the talk page. clpo13(talk) 18:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This is far from the truth. (As per mentioned above,) and while many of Haitian STEVE's edits in the past have also been controversial. If you look at his talk page, he has removed all the warnings he has incurred up to this point. To whom it may concern, thanks. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing a warning is proof that the user saw the warning, and it remains in the history for all to see. So, that's a thing. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
3O wouldn't work because Number 57 has already given an opinion. I'd say the OP is heading for a boomerang. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

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

User:BlackJack[edit]

Closing this. BlackJack has retired, and there's nothing more to be done. GABHello! 23:14, 23 December 2015 (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.

Would an uninvolved admin please take a look at these edits by BlackJack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): [8][9]? They certainly seem to cross the line into personal attacks: in eight years I've never before been told that I am "unfit to be an editor here". StAnselm (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Everything that Anselm has done on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination) and the article itself needs to be scrutinised, including his convenient relationship with User:Reyk who seems to be on hand whenever anyone replies to Anselm. Anselm has annoyed more than one experienced editor with his condescending attitude and his over-zealous views about the BLP policy, even though he is guilty of breaching the policy himself. He does not comply with WP:AGF and, in that respect, the limit is this accusation: "Now, the fact that you now refer to a guide issued "about 2005" suggests that "Sri Lankan cricketers, 2015" is simply a made-up reference that you added to the article. Don't do that, please". Nothing has been made up as any sensible person reading the discussion would immediately agree. His attitude is disgraceful and several of his actions are completely out of order. In my opinion, he is unfit to be an editor and should resign from WP. Jack | talk page 13:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
What this comes down to, StAnselm, is the pure case of verifiability. Technically nothing is verifiable unless we were there at the time witnessing it, and if we *were* there at the time, then this contravenes WP:PRIMARY. Essentially we would end up in a situation where we had *no* articles on Wikipedia, because nothing is truly verifiable. Bobo. 14:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a reignition of [10]. All this great drama is around the Article for Deletion discussion about S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer), a former first-class cricketer in Sri Lanka. This person is surely less notable in the US than (choose your favorite candidate to the next coming election), but there are some sources about him. Nevertheless it seems that at least one side of the discussion is using arguments that are not established cricket technical expression, like "forgiveness my arse" and "mendacious fuckwittery". It could be useful to remind some 'older' editors that being calm and level-headed could be more convincing than ... I don't remember the exact established cricket technical expression to use here. Pldx1 (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like things have cooled. I've left BlackJack a message about making sure to stay civil in the future, which I hope will resolve this thread. Prodego talk 18:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment(ec)- StAnselm points out that Jack's precious new sources don't actually say everything Jack claims they do, and Jack responds by attacking StAnselm's religion. That's fucking low, and any remaining inclination I might have had to extend this guy any assumption of good faith is gone. Also not a fan of the following:
  • Re-creating an article that was deleted via consensus at AfD (and confirmed by DRV), with juuuuuuust enough cosmetic changes to persuade a lenient admin not to G4 the wretched thing, despite doing nothing to actually address the reason for deletion. If someone immediately renominates a kept article just to get another roll of the AfD dice, that would not be permitted. This is exactly the same thing.
  • Places two warning templates on StAnselm's talk page at once, then "Look how many warning templates he has" along with a lot of associated bluster. Not to mention that placing the warning templates in the first place was silly tit-for-tat retaliation for this.
  • Lots of personal attacks: 'idiot', 'You are a condescending individual whose motives are highly questionable.' , 'You are a disgrace.', 'infantile sidekick'. Took me a little while to realise this last attack was aimed at me, because I don't recall having much interaction with StAnselm before we crossed paths at the Perera AfD. Not sure if I'm being accused of sockpuppetry or what, but I think deigning to answer this allegation would give it a veneer of legitimacy. Reyk YO! 18:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps User:Reyk could tell us his opinion about the sentence I just haven't got the time or patience to indulge your brand of mendacious fuckwittery that someone used in the aforementioned Article for Deletion discussion ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC) .
  • No, but I can reveal that I have no time or patience for smug passive-aggressive fuckwittery either. If you have an issue with me, have the decency to talk to me directly instead of adopting this haughty attitude. And before you start screaming "WAA! NPA!" let me remind you that I am describing behaviour, not namecalling. Reyk YO! 14:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Two wrongs do not make a right - making a personal attack in response to a personal attack is still a personal attack. "It's behavior, not namecalling" is WP:WIKILAWYERING. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, that all worked, didn't it? BJ has stomped off into retirement, which makes resolution of the original issue at this AfD a lot more difficult. Sometimes we have to put up with people like him who are brusque in manner and direct in tone because they get things done. Johnlp (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
"Brusque" is quite the euphemism in this instance. Wikipedia can get along just fine without "brusque" editors, no matter what their perceived importance is. clpo13(talk) 09:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed; if somebody flounces in response to being called out for blatant personal attacks, Wikipedia will survive without them. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:03, 23 December 2015 (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.

"Traitor" in a BLP article[edit]

Please take it to the talk page. This is not something to be discussed here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:31, 23 December 2015 (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.

GreenBeret65 and SheriffIsInTown want to describe Hussain Haqqani as a "traitor" in the lead of this BLP article. [11], [12], [13]. When I point out that it is a conetentious label, their response is that I should get the term added to the list [14]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I removed the text from the lead. These cats better take it to the talk page: this is a BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I would also like to point out that it is well-sourced and it was added by GreenBeret65 was reverted by Kautilya3 saying it is unsourced but when i went in to check i found it to be sourced since it was removed describing it unsourced, i reverted him saying that it is sourced, if there was some other reason given for the revert by Kautilya3 then it might have been a different case but at this point i find that text as sourced and the term "traitor" not in the "Words to watch" list. Sheriff | report | 18:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
    Dude, what are you even saying? --QEDK (TC) 18:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
    Please point out what you did not understand and i will try to explain as best as possible, i really thought i was using English language though. Sheriff | report | 19:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of English language, the word "traitor" was used with two sources where this word is just not present. A dictionary was used in edit summaries as a justification, but that's just original synthesis. On other words: reinsert that again and be blocked. Max Semenik (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Aren't you supposed to "not to use" the exact words as in the source as it becomes copy violation and write it in your own words or am i understanding copyvio wrong? Sheriff | report | 19:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Probably not, but that's not the problem. You're also not supposed to interpret the sources and come to interpretations that aren't explicitly in them. Especially when it come to biographies of living persons. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
So, how would you interpret the text "Husain Haqqani was not loyal to Pakistan"? Tell me your interpretation because that's what the source says? Sheriff | report | 19:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

We are not censors. If someone (and they should be identified as the speaker/writer) says it, and it is their voice it can be reported as their statement or opinion. It can also be disputed if someone says to the contrary. If it is a flat statement of fact then it should not be said. 7&6=thirteen () 20:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

If we can do something like that, and I'm not too sure, it should always be "according to xxx he was not loyal to Pakistan". That would at least need consensus between editors I think. But even then I'm not sure if it's ok to repeat accusations by third parties. The source seems to be the website of a newspaper. I think it's problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Crazy idea all, take this to the talk page of the article, where it belongs. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Source is the news piece by a major Pakistani newspaper quoting a well known commission report which declares a Pakistani citizen "not loyal to Pakistan". According to this the source becomes secondary because it is reporting a primary source and it would not be in violation of WP:RS or WP:BLP. I don't see any reason why it should not be mentioned except mere belligerence by a few editors.
By the way, i like your phone! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:27, 23 December 2015 (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.

83.220.238.225[edit]

BLOCKED
Resolved
--QEDK (TC) 18:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone please revoke talk page for User talk:83.220.238.225 and extend the block? This IP came up with the interesting concept of vandalizing WP:AIV by repeatedly removing the reports of their own vandalism, and is now removing notices from their talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Now revoked and rangeblocked for six months. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2015 (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.
Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

MarkBernstein and insinuations[edit]

REDUNDANT
Administrator action has already occurred: parties warned by Mark Arsten on WP:EWAN3 NE Ent 02:28, 24 December 2015 (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 fully expected to be blocked at AIV in the thread where MarkBernstein said this. Given that I had exceeded the bright line, I had no defence in policy. If someone now wants to over-rule the decision made by Mark Arsten then I have no problem with that. However, I am fed up of seeing MarkBernstein insinuating rubbish such as he did there and I'm fed up of his soapboxing and treading of the line with his routinely acerbic comments and edit summaries. I would like someone to review the general situation, not merely that specific episode.

There are people here who can probably confirm that I live in an area that has one of the most dense populations of Jewish people in the UK, and I pretty much always have done. It really doesn't help matters when someone alludes to anti-Semitism in that context, however cleverly they word it, nor is it necessarily the case that someone called Bernstein is in fact Jewish anyway (or, for that matter, that I am not). It is this playing with words, as he also did in the same comment with regard to my supposed (but in fact entirely incorrect) association with Gamergate people.

It needs to stop and in fact it needed to stop months ago. How much more of this stuff must people take before his clever use of semantics is recognised for what it is, ie: a POV-pushing smear campaign on a massive scale where any angle will be exploited, however tenuous. I doubt that the Gamergaters are any better but I'm not affiliated with either "side" and if the only solution is to ignore the article etc then the outcome will be what it is now: a crock of shit unworthy of an encyclopaedia. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

So why not just say what you meant by "your people" and "lawyering"?Sir Joseph (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :I am very sorry that Sitush took my remark as he did.

A correspondent has urged me that “I think it's in your best interests to withdraw your comment and perhaps apologize, because it was over the line. There is no question that you have been subjected to horrific anti-semetic harassment by gamergate, but you can't assume that everyone you clash with on that article has been sent there by gamergate HQ.”
I am at this moment very angry with that correspondent, but against my better judgment I will comply. But I do not believe that Sitush was sent by Gamergate HQ.
This correspondent has previously warned me that Situs’s displeasure is so powerful and so influential that none can withstand it. Extortion cannot be resisted in such circumstances, and here my acquiescence is demanded. I therefore meekly apologize and beg your pardon.
If you will excuse me, I have a dinner party to prepare. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
(1) Hello, context please? What decision are you talking about overruling? (2) What kind of admin action do you want? Overruling Arsten's decision? Sanctions for Bernstein? Something else? Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • To paraphrase the wit and wisdom of Kimberly "Sweet Brown" Wilkins, ain't nobody got time for this! There's only one question relevant to this thread: Sitush, where can you find a good bagel in your area? Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

So this is a crock of shit also. Can't you lot see what MarkBernstein is doing even when he does it in this very thread? Useless, the lot of you. - Sitush (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Sitush is correct—the linked comment in the OP and the comments above show that MarkBernstein is massively misinformed and obnoxious. Sitush may be on the wrong bus at gamergate controversy, but the smear that anti-Semitism might be involved is pathetic. Perhaps MB moves in circles where anti-Semitism lurks in every comment, but quite apart from assume good faith, the "people" comment makes no sense if interpreted in that fashion, whereas it matches the thoughts in the talk page argument which concerns those on each side of a dispute, and where "SPA" and "people" are mentioned. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2015 (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.

BLP violations at Mo Ansar[edit]

Ponyo has blocked the user indefinitely (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:51, 24 December 2015 (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.

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

Having an issue with this user at Mo Ansar, repeatly reverting to insert their negatively-skewed POV of this political commentator. Has been warned by several editors not to reinsert defamatory material like this but continues unabated, with edit summaries such as "unfortunately for you, it's the truth". Only edits this article, unless it's to insert negative POV about this person in other articles. WP:NOTHERE block appears to be in order. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

A quite horrid BLP at best. I cleaned up some of the worst bits, but a lot of it is still "sourced" to YouTube. Collect (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I have referenced all of my edits. Although they have been taken out, feel free to check back. I have reverted some and it has then gone back without references. I can only apologise for being new and not getting the rules right. This whole page since Dec 2015 was edited into a promo page, which i don't think this site should be used for. The Youtube channel you talk of collect hosted nothing but footage of the subject, including a recording of one of his personal phone calls. I will leave you to decide who runs the 'Driller Kay' account on Youtube.

Ivanvector unfortunately there is a lot of negative points around the subject of this page. As I'm sure you can see by the evidence that 'either he or someone close to him' edited this page to make himself look good. I have inserted many credible links and citings to my edits of which you and others have removed, however they do not breech conduct rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LutonPete (talkcontribs) 01:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

LutonPete continues to edit war ([15] [16] [17]) to reinsert improperly sourced defamatory material about this living person, despite being told that their sources are unacceptable and their edits violate policy. Asking for an admin to intervene. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:46, 23 December 2015 (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.

Yerevan Thermal Power Plant[edit]

RESOLVED
Probable sockmaster blocked and meatpuppet stopped disruption. --QEDK (TC) 14:11, 24 December 2015 (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.

As a part of student assignement, Armanilogin (talk · contribs) and Eduard Muradyan (talk · contribs) continues to re-add copyrighted material to the Yerevan Thermal Power Plant. The issue is discussed at the articleõs talk page and at my talk page, but these editors refuse to understand the copyright violations policy and ignores the request to not restore copyrighted material or remove maintenance tgs without discussing first. Beagel (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear administration, the user Baegal does not discuss anything with us. He just deletes our work putting his own without explaining anything. We have redone our work 5 times and he does not respond in any way. He just puts the article the same way as he did before, and deletes our work constantly. IF we violate something he could at least explain us what to do. Nevertheless, he speaks with us with an offensive tone, and does not cooperate with us. We would be glad to cooperate with him and help wikipedia with its hard job. Also, you can see in his message lots of grammatical mistakes, that one more time proves his attitude. I think he has issues to my race/nationality. Best Regards, A new, but enthusiastic member of Wikipedia, Arman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanilogin (talkcontribs) 19:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted once again and given each user a clear warning about this. Sam Walton (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
It still is going on [18]. Possible evasion of block. Beagel (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
And possible sockpuppet [19]. Beagel (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)When I arrived just now Armanilogin (talk · contribs) was already blocked 36h for copyvio after they continued the behavior. APEIJEQQAGHAQ (talk · contribs) was then created and continued attempting to "restructure" the article. I've indef'd that account as the loudest of ducks and semi-protected the article for 3 days to discourage further block evasion. Hopefully this will push the editors in question to discussion. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I've changed the block of Armanilogin to indefinite due to the threats they just made on their talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: Could you also block APEIJEQQAGHAQ (talk · contribs) and Eduard Muradyan (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets/meatpuppets of the sockmaster? Thank you. --QEDKTC 18:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@QEDK: Not so sure about Eduard Muradyan since they've been around the whole time. Beagel mentioned the possibility of a class project, which seems probable. Sam Walton (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: Yeah, seems to be a meatpuppet. I think we're better off giving a bit of ROPE one last time. --QEDKTC 19:12, 21 December 2015 (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.

Scottywong's FCOI[edit]

NO ADMIN ACTION
As consensus appears to be no admin action is forthcoming, interested editors are encourage to continue the conversation at Talk:CobraNet NE Ent 12:43, 24 December 2015 (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.

Scottywong has apparently come out of retirement to defend CobraNet. CobraNet is currently a GA article that Scottywong created with his very first edit, and which he worked on for over two years to get approved as a GA.

Scottywong currently has a WP:FCOI with some portions of the article, being an employee of a non-notable company highlighted in the article whose publications are being used as sources.

Scottywong doesn't believe he has a FCOI in this situation, and has pointed out that he originally added the content and sources before he was hired by the company.

Scottywong hasn't disclosed his identity nor his employer, and would like it to remain so. I am not aware of him disclosing enough information about himself to make his identity apparent. He has made his employer rather easy to determine given his comments and editing given what he says here. I expect that was made in response to situations where similar disclosures where made. I'm unaware of those edits/discussions. I've not looked to see if he's made similar, coi-violating edits.

The problems that I'm having with Scottywong is that he doesn't feel he has a FCOI, he's not been following COI (especially WP:COIADVICE), and he's pushing the limits of WP:COITALK (granted, there's no evidence he's being paid to edit Wikipedia). Most importantly, his participation in the current content dispute at CobraNet places the disclosure of his employer in jeopardy, and creates a great deal of doubt that he can put the interests (policies, etc) of Wikipedia before those of his employer (especially when you know who that employer is). If he wants to keep the identity of his employer private, he should not be making the edits and comments that he has.

I don't keep abreast of how much more strongly COI has been enforced the past few years after the FCOI restrictions were extended, and have only glanced at some of the ArbCom and other discussions that led to the new restrictions. I hope editors more familiar with the FCOI changes will comment. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Ronz, according to your editing history, you apparently have a determined mission to seek out the slightest resemblance, however innocent, of COI. While that is perhaps admirable, I have been following your discussions with Scottywong and it appears to me that you have practically forced him out of retirement to answer to your claims. Your relentless pursuit under the guise of polite conversation is undue and Scottywong in my opinion was wrong to even engage with you. My suggestion to you both is for Scott to relax any claims he holds over that ancient creation and let it be disfigured, even deleted, and enjoy his retirement. May I respectfully suggest that Ronz channel their efforts into helping to combat and clean up far more serious cases of organised large-scale paid advocacy such as the ongoing Orangemoody and similar issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Ronz means well but is unable to communicate (as in two-way: the output system works well, but the input system is defective). I suppose disinterested editors will have to watch the circus and try to revert any excess. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • So far the read has been more fun than watching reruns on Netflix. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Scottywong had a spotless record at Wikipedia and built really informative tools during his stay. I'm pretty sure he's had more interaction with the policies than most of us (passive-aggressive way of bringing up our horrible editor retention stats). Now, I went through the discussions you specified and the only conclusion I draw is, you're unnecessarily drawing out his past where he was made the victim, just like here. I don't know where you spotted his wrongful behavior and I don't see it now. Nor do I know what you seek out of this ANI. He had defended Kvng who has yes, held his stance aggressively, edit-warring too, that's wrong. But I don't think, that can be held against him to slam sanctions. I don't believe I've had any personal interaction with Scottywong before, so hey boy, no COI here. --QEDK (TC) 12:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Scottywong made his COI statement in May 2012. I have no interest in looking why he made it. He brought it up, not me. I am very cautious when it comes to avoiding any outing, but if editors feel otherwise, please provide diffs or the like so I can improve.
Apparently he is less that familiar with our policies when it comes to spam [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] (granted, the last two are questionable].
He's employed by a company that he highlights in the article, and reverted to retain the portion of that content currently under dispute [25] [26] [27] . These reverts violate COI. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Deleting an external link to the subject of the article seems rather stupid. Further, you seem to be hounding him, and I seem to recall where he says he does not have any COI so you really need to lay off your claims. You seem to be the problem editor here. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Concerning the external links: He followed me to articles to challenge my routine cleanup of them.
He wrote, "Also, at the time that I originally wrote this article, I was not employed by the same company I am employed by now. So, when you say that I used my own employer as a source, that's not accurate. At the time that I actually wrote that article and used that source, they were not my employer. " I'm not saying his original edits violated FCOI, I'm saying the diffs above do, and he's confirmed it. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know who added all that content (haven't gone through all the diffs) but the stuff restored by Scottywong does read like an advertisement, uses peacock terms and there's light puffery. I'm unsure about my stance now. But, let us not insinuate just because Scottywong has declined to provide any information about his employment, he isn't required to do so. Also, adding external links is fine, but I've barely seen anyone do so and in many cases (read: not all), it's people promoting themselves. Also, I agree with Sir Joseph when it comes to the hounding issue, take it down a notch. --QEDK (TC) 16:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Pinging @Scottywong:. --QEDK (TC) 16:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
CobraNet prior to other contributions. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Revamping of article in progress. --QEDK (TC) 17:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Fixed lede, History and Advantages and Disadvantages sections. --QEDK (TC) 18:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't close this because I've already commented. However, Ronz, it appears you have not taken any notice whatsoever of what others have said, so the very least you deserve is a big wet trout for starting the thread in the first place. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Ronz' editing behaviour has been so simplistically dogmatic in the past (All ELs must perish, no matter what value they add) that I've wondered if they weren't a 'bot. Certainly they could be implemented as one. Sadly, this issue doesn't shift my opinion.Andy Dingley (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2015 (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.

PA in Persian[edit]

RESOLVED
--QEDK (TC) 10:06, 24 December 2015 (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.

Hey, this edit contains unbelieved amount PA in it. Can you do something about it? :)Ladsgroupoverleg 13:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I can translate if you want. :)Ladsgroupoverleg 13:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Google translate gives smth which is very negative against Iran indeed, but I am not feeling comfortable blocking a user based on Google translate. Do we have Persian-speaking admins?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I guess, since it's two people (three, counting me) already and we've tried it on translation sites (I've checked on a few other translation sites too, to be sure), just revdel and if anything comes up, then maybe discuss and chill? --QEDK (TC) 15:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I revision-deleted it and mailed oversight. I am still not sure about the block.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I've checked previously, and there are no enwiki admins who speak Persian (or at least none who advertise it on their talk page using babel. Brustopher (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I warned the user, and this is probably about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2015 (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.

Multiple duplicate pages created by Wj887[edit]

(non-admin closure) USer warned. BMK (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2015 (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 user Wj887 appears to have created multiple duplicate pages which need deleting, under the names QHT, Quantum Hi-Tech, Quantum Hi Tech, etc. I was unable to pick them out specifically because they are exactly alike in terms of content. The articles he's created have been CSD tagged multiple times but the user has continued to recreate these articles. CatcherStorm talk 06:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I gave him/her a final warning. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:21, 22 December 2015 (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.

Security concern[edit]

(non-admin closure) Confusion cleared up byDHeyward. BMK (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2015 (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 received this message on my talk page; an IP accusing me of making an edit on his talk page, today. I tried to investigate to see what I might have done (by accident) and the user page shows its history with one edit credited to me, looping back to MY talk page. My contributions shows no edit to this IP user page. So this is a most confusing loop of unsubstantial accusations and misdirected history. Is this a breach in the security or some other manipulation? Trackinfo (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything. What user page are you referring to? Prodego talk 05:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm only seeing the IP's edit on your talk page, but nothing that looks like you (or someone faking you) editing their page. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It's a trap! Because the IP doesn't have a user page, clicking the IP shows his contributions, not his user page or a diff. Normally you'd expect to see a page or a diff or a history of that page but because it's an IP it's howing his contributions. Nothing to worry about. Just read the top of the page where it says it's his contributions and not a user page, history or diff. --DHeyward (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Trackinfo I created a talk page and user page. I bet it looks different for you now. --DHeyward (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2015 (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.

WillShowU[edit]

(non-admin closure) WillShowU blocked for 48 hours by Bishonen. BMK (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2015 (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.

WillShowU appears to think that he can issue edicts unilaterally in Indian cinema articles, and the result is persistent disruption. I will point out that the user has been active since only November 30, 2015, made a few edits at a few different articles, but then really and hit the ground running. This is a pattern often seen among people who work in editing rings. They often do diverse editing early on to get past the autoconfirmed filters.

  • Here he removes a box office value from a film article's infobox with the edict "worldwide gross is added after full run". I try to explain to him that common editing practice is to update this value as new information unfolds. There's nothing at Template:Infobox film that dissuades this. He doesn't reply.
  • Here he removes the gross values from the infobox again, explaining "worldwide gross can be added at the end. Please." I warned him about that again. No response.
  • Here he changes the box office value, but the reference used shows a range of 145-150. He picked the higher number instead of presenting the range. I asked him why he didn't present the range. He ignored the question.
  • Here he again removes the box office gross value from the infobox, commenting "For God's Sake, listen to me. I dont have the time to take a silly thing to the talk page. We will add gross at the end, otherwise different people will come with different sources, vandalize the page or start an edit war. Please use your brain."

Editor needs to be clearly edified that this is a community project, that he doesn't get to unilaterally fabricate rules and issue edicts, that he can't edit war, and that he can't attempt WP:OWNERSHIP of the article. Between me and other admins, it wouldn't surprise me if he was a sock of someone, although I have not yet determined who yet. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I just noticed that he made this edit where he introduces content lifted verbatim from Times of India. So integrity is also an issue here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: The user is an WP:SPA having edited article only related to the film Dilwale (2015 film); might also have WP:COI somehow or be a paid editor and might need a disclaimer per WP:PAID. I have dropped a note on their page regarding this. Lets see what they reply. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
In this edit, he uses the edit summary: "Remember that I am being as cordial as I can. I have explained my edits once before and if anyone has a doubt, can check that. I don't know who is retarded enough to not understand." If this is as cordial as he gets, we may have a problem. There certainly do seem to be strong elements of ownership here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
And the really sad thing about this, is that he had to backpedal on his obnoxious bluster after he realized he was wrong. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Aaaaaand here's another delightful tidbit. He's unilaterally deciding what is or isn't a sufficient source for box values. If anybody changes the gross or source, they must explain their edit and give a better and more convincing source than this (not Bollywood Hungama, Koimoi etc.) The Indian cinema task force is fine with Bollywood Hungama. They're not happy about Koimoi, but it's been very difficult to enforce. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: I'm convinced now that this is a sock of WikiBriefed Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • WillShowU blocked for 48 hours. If they should stop editing after the 48-hour block, as WikiBriefed did in November, I guess that would be further suggestive of sockpuppetry. Bishonen | talk 16:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC).

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

IP range on a revert edit war[edit]

IP'S BLOCKED
(non-admin closure) Both IPs blocked with thanks to Bethnaught. The IPs shouldn't even get coal in their stocking tonight. MarnetteD|Talk 20:33, 24 December 2015 (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.

Would an admin take a look at 81.170.6.182 and , 81.170.9.201 both geolocate to the same area. Just started a series of revert wars targeted at a couple of editors (one of which is me). Ignoring warnings on the talk page. Probably someone taking out a grudge or two while on a christmas holiday with a different computer. Thanks ----Snowded TALK 19:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted a few edits and given them warnings. Now to see if an admin will act. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 20:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Both blocked. 182 got a longer block as that is the currently active one. Clearly the same person using multiple IPs to edit war, making disingenuous edit summaries including some personal attacks and unacceptable slurs based on mental health. BethNaught (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

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

IP editor - block evading comes back to taunt blocking admin[edit]

MULTIPLE IP'S BLOCKED
(non-admin closure) Original & second IP blocked by Kuru. WCMemail 22:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

190.45.71.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP Long term abusive editor, currently blocked for one year, a month later comes back to taunt the blocking admin. [[28] WCMemail 19:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

[29] Diff of one year range block. WCMemail 19:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
[30] Removal of ANI notice, in case anyone complains I didn't send one. WCMemail 19:48, 24 December 2015 (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.

Caution review needed[edit]

Resolved. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:31, 25 December 2015 (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.

Having reviewed multiple faulty speedy nominations from a new editor, OOblivion, I have concerns that this caution may not have been merited, especially since it was issued on OOblivion's second day on the wiki. There's nothing visible on MD's edit history to indicate one way or the other. Could someone with the tools please check. Bazj (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

  • This does not need reporting here. There are many ways of telling new users they are not ready for NPP. I do it all the time. Stiging them with an ANI so soon will lose them for us. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't seem to have conveyed my concern very well since both OOblivion and Kudpung have commented. My concern is that MorganDrear may have a caution on his record which may not be deserved. If it wasn't deserved it ought to be removed. Since stuff has been deleted how else (where else) can I get an admin to check it? Bazj (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
MorganDrear may remove the note anytime they want to, but it was deserved as they did remove a speedy deletion tag from an article they created. OOblivion did not do anything wrong here. -- GB fan 13:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
GB fan, Thanks, that's all I needed to hear. And apologies all round for the drama caused by what was intended to be a simple question. Bazj (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

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

User Randall Adhemar and IP 69.200.228.170 - Persistent addition of unsourced content and unwillingness to comply[edit]

This user/IP has been persistenly adding unsourced content to various articles and continues to do so after a final warning on his talk page User talk:69.200.228.170.

Note that this fixed IP indeed belongs to the registered user: [31], [32], [33].

On several occasions the user has come to my talk page with walls of text, protesting about my removals of his unsourced content: archived here and currently here. On each occasion I responded that Wikipedia needs sources. He also went to user NeilN's talk page with similar complaints (User talk:NeilN/Archive 27#Calculus) and User talk:NeilN/Archive 27#Calculus_2, where he was replied to by users NeilN and My very best wishes. This user/IP seems to be convinded that given his expertise in certain matters, that their is no need for him to provide sources. With this particular edit he added—directly into the article—a typical talk page like comment, including a personal comment about me. At that point I gave him a 3rd level warning ([34]). After his next unsourced edit ([35]), I gave a final warning ([36]).

After that final warning:

In view of this last edit summary I decided not to reply anymore. This user seems not be interested in how Wikipedia works, he refuses to properly format talk page messages, assumes bad faith, ignores comments pointing to relevant policies and guidelines and helpful essays, attributes other people's helpful comments to me. Perhaps adminstrative action might help here? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User and IP notified on talk pages: ([39], [40]). - DVdm (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

More Dodgyness[edit]

More dodgyness, just like some previous dodgyness.
User:Nimmu23 and User:Zestmind
These two SPAs are likely the same person. Both followed the same sneaky method to introduce there adverts into Wikipedia.
Start a sandbox.

Zestmind
Nimmu23

After waiting a period of time create an article.

Zestmind
Nimmu23

Hijack a unrelated redirect.

dif deleted. (Barbara Khozam) Zestmind
Nimmu23

Move to new location.

Zestmind
Nimmu23

Change target of resulting redirect back to what was there.

Zestmind
Nimmu23

Both also created short user and talk pages on the same day as they introduced their spam to mainspace.

Zestmind [41]
Nimmu23 [42]

Is this the MO of a new shills sockfarm? Am I right in guessing these two are too old for a checkuser at SPI? Anyone seeing the like still happening? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

 It looks like a duck to me. I'm pretty sure a CU check will result in {{Confirmed}} (if sockpuppets). Hence, a few blocks are in order. --QEDKTC 07:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Duffbeerforme: The accounts are indeed stale when it comes to the Checkuser tool.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Tobibln and their long-term pattern of unsourced changes[edit]

This [43] is the last of a long record of unsourced additions of content from Tobibln (talk · contribs). The user continues ignoring the warnings left at their talk regarding the addition of unreferenced material. You may find more diffs at the user's talk. I believe other actions are now in order.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Which destination are you disputing? A quick check of Moscow Domodedovo Airport's flight schedule webpage verifies all the aiports Tobibln added. This is a nine year, 33k / 98.8% mainspace edit, drama free account [44]. Unreferenced material is allowed to be added -- a reference is only required if it's likely to be challenged. Why would someone argue about easily verified airplane destinations? NE Ent 17:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Have you heard about WP:BURDEN? References for start/end dates are required per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I do notice that you have made several attempts to communicate with Tobibln. I notice that User:Tobibln has never responded to you or anyone else on their user talk page or article talk page. There does seem to be a failure to respond to legitimate concerns or communication in general. It seems in 9 years this user has somehow not talked to anyone. HighInBC 18:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, let's just wait for their opinion here, although my major concern is that they keep introducing unsourced statements. Maybe we have a WP:COMPETENCE issue here.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I've also noticed this behavior, and I've undone lots of his edits, like this. Looking at his contributions, I've found this old edit, where Tobibln talked to another user. So I don't understand why he's not responding on his talk page, as the user has certainly seen notifications. Wjkxy (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN says "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." (wikilink original). The advice at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT includes "10. For current destinations, the implicit reference is the airline's published timetable. If the flight is in the timetable and not challenged, an explicit reference is not normally included." In both examples given in this thread, finding a reference to support Tobibln's addition was easy. The big picture question should be, what is more important, that Tobibln is improving mainspace by adding non-contentious, easily verifiable content without referencing it, or that they are not "following the rules"? Per Wikipedia:NOTBUREAUCRACY the obvious answer should be the former. NE Ent 12:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
You are missing the point here, I'm not talking about current destinations. They added an unsourced entry here [45] (i.e., the new service to Krasnoyarsk), that's the very reason of this discussion. And references should be provided, as stated in WP:VERIFY: ″All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.″ This is what Tobibln did not do. Their continuous addition of unsourced content like the one in the diff has to stop, mostly considering that they did not reply to any of my messages left at their talk and that, despite being well aware of the verififiability policy, continued with their behaviour.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Here [46] you have a clean example (i.e., not masked by current destinations that currently do not require a citation) of a totally unsourced addition made by this editor.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tobibln: you have been here almost 10 years but have never really talked to anyone in the community. We are a collaborative project, please discuss this with us. HighInBC 21:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Well this user has not edited since this post here. I would say that this is probably going to get archived without a response. I think if it carries on and they continue to fail to communicate that it should be brought back here and this thread linked to. HighInBC 15:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Jisteele[edit]

Back in October 2013 the above user was temporarily blocked at User talk:Jisteele for vandalism. It appears that this user has been up to the same shenanigans. Just go to his or her contributions here, and you will find plenty of changes in articles about towns and neighborhoods that are quite minor and not explained in an edit summary. If I am not mistaken, this fellow or girl has also been doing the same kind of edits under a different name, for which he or she has been blocked. I certainly hope you can look into this and take the necessary steps. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this IP is the same person, with the same kind of bad edits (very minor, with no Edit summaries). BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wholesale reversions of Doc James edits[edit]

They've stopped, reverts undone, and all is well. Sam Walton (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2015 (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.

Systematic reversions of Doc James' edits at capital punishment articles. These appear to constitute edit warring using multiple IPs, as indicated here, for instance [47]. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Where did you notify Doc James about this complaint and/or try to discuss this with him? ←Baseball Bugs What's