Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive939

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

LogicalGenius3 citing a Holocaust denial blog and trying to change WP:RS to support it[edit]

(non-admin closure)User blocked, nothing more to discuss. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:12, 24 November 2016 (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.

Logicalgenius3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

LogicalGenius3 has tried to cite something on a Holocaust denial blog to support claims of his. When this failed, he tried to alter WP:Identifying reliable sources supposedly on (nonsensical) grammar grounds, but really (by his own admission) to let him add primary source based original research (...which would somehow make it OK to cite primary sources on that Holocaust denial blog). He has responded to multiple seasoned editors' explanations for why we don't do this with edit warring, filibusters that somehow remind me of Dianetics lessons, and accusations of bad faith and (ironically) ownership.

We don't need someone who would make these kinds of blunders editing articles relating to the Holocaust, nor does he need to be making changes to guidelines and policies. At a minimum, he needs a topic ban from those two areas. I've been given the impression that his belief in the superiority of his own understanding of English and logic has caused trouble in other articles, but have not investigated. If his behavior in the topics I have mentioned is reflective on his conduct as a whole, then WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR seem to terminally apply.

As it is, I've had the block menu open in another tab ever since I found out that one of his motivations was citing a Holocaust denial blog (amazed we don't have discretionary sanctions on that topic), but since he is making edits in other areas I figured I should ask for the community's assessment. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

What? But Ian ... there isn't a rise in racism, fascism and antisemitism on English Wikipedia. You must just be imagining this.
Seriously, how often does he make edits that aren't related Jews or Nazis? I'm not seeing a lot. There are definitely some, but are they worth it? His favourite page is Frédéric Chopin, put all he did was edit-war to keep the word "French" in the lead. Next is Albert Einstein, a Jew who fled the Nazis. Next is Technical University of Berlin, alma mater of various Nazis, and his edits were specifically to the notable alumni list's descriptions of them. He made several minor tweaks to Prussian Academy of Arts -- the topic seems innocuous, but he edit-warred and cited de.wiki, so it's not an indication that he's a valuable contributor to the project either. Next Auschwitz concentration camp. Next Battle of Stalingrad. Next Focke-Wulf Fw 190, which is related to the Third Reich but relatively innocuous, but his edits also were not substantial. Next Bauakademie -- no problem, but nothing to write home about anyway. Next 1996 Mount Everest disaster -- no problem, but again nothing substantial. Next Theresienstadt concentration camp. Next Rudolf Höss. Next Otto Wächter. I mean, there is some evidence that if we applied a broad TBAN he might become a good WP:GNOME and correct some formatting problems or spelling errors, but is it even worth it? I'm not seeing why his "edits in other areas" would make you think twice about just blocking him. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you find specific edits that would raise red flags if not in the light of the original complaint? And I've never said denied that there hasn't been a rise in fascists on Wikipedia -- in the case you link to, I just did not see any explicit evidence that couldn't be attributed to coincidence (replace "Jewish" and "German" with any other labels and it's suddenly a very different picture, as TU-nor explained). While I'm all for blocking neo-Nazis, white supremacists, fascists, and their ilk and firmly believe AGF is not a suicide pact, we still need to have better standards than HUAC. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I've never said denied that there hasn't been a rise in fascists on Wikipedia Far too many negatives, and it's 6 a.m. here so I literally can't wrap my head around it. Basically I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was saying that when I last pointed out that there seems to be an unusually large number of ANI threads about Holocaust deniers, Nazi dog-whistles, and people denying that white supremacists were white supremacists, and so, people basically replied with "no", and then since then the rate has jumped up again. Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I think the guy's perfectly competent, Ian, and well on his way to extended-confirmed, which I think is his goal with these insubstantial edits. But he is NOTHERE, and I'd have no objection if you used the block button. Katietalk 12:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, done. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Ian.thomson did a good job noticing this. Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Someone who is not aware that the Institute for Historical Review is a holocaust denial group has no business editing articles on the holocaust. Good block. RolandR (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just looked through this user's arguments out of a sense of morbid curiosity and had no difficulty identifying numerous, extremely obvious logical flaws in them, despite the editor's name and penchant for referring to formal logic. Apologies if I seem to be 'piling on', but I felt the need to point this out, as this fact helps to undermine any block appeal that relies upon our assumption of good faith on their part. I don't believe anyone who is that ignorant of logic, yet claims to be that interested in logic can be honestly said to be arguing in good faith, albeit with poor goals and choice of words. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I was tempted to add "logic in username" to WP:Bingo, or at least modify "truth in username" to "truth or logic in username." That was part of the reason I asked here before blocking: I couldn't tell if LogicalGenius3's Dianetics-esque illustration of the Dunning–Kruger effect was just something that required a topic ban to get a gnome out of, or proof that my twitchy trigger finger was right. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I think "truth or logic in username" would be a wonderful addition. I haven't had much luck editing alongside anyone with either word in their username. Also I think a block was the right call. Whether this is an extreme WP:CIR case, or a case of some dedicated trolling, (and I suspect we will never know which), there is simply no place for them here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Comment: We're done, they're blocked, let's close this out. Anyone who knows the coding for the purple box, care to do it, please? MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) (Now THIS... I did.) 17:03, 22 November 2016 (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.

Highly disruptive IPs - WP:NOTHERE[edit]

IPs rangeblocked for one month by KrakatoaKatie.
Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quickly pinging Emir of Wikipedia and Smartyllama as they are being affected by this as well. There's a problem IP that has been constantly pinging us all over the place with the sole intention to disrupt. There is actually a particularly long story here, but, I'd rather not give you a 10k byte+ message to try to deal with it. Instead I'll just give a quick summary explanation and some links. For me this started around a week ago after I intervened in a discussion between said IP and Emir that was taking place at Emir's talk page. It took about a full week to get that discussion to shut off; the extremely long and PA ridden discussion is here. If you skim through it you'll notice that the IP has changed numerous times, some key IPs involved here are;

  • 2607:fb90:1e07:82d1:0:e:1943:9201 (Most recent)
  • 2607:FB90:1E03:77F9:0:47:78FC:3501
  • 2607:fb90:1e0a:4ee6:0:30:f809:8501
  • 2607:fb90:1e08:b906:0:47:7974:4001

Right now Emir is punching through each of the IP's comments and reverting them. This IP has made no effort to cease their disruption for more than a week. I'm not sure how range blocks work, but, it seems to me that in this case there would be a whole heap of collateral damage. All-in-all, there are a few WP:NOTHERE blocks that I think should be enacted. It would at least kill this disruption for the moment being. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Disruption logs; Emir's talk page, Aga Khan, Template talk:Twelvers, Zaidiyyah, Alawites and my own talk page. I think I counted around 30 disruptive repetitive pinging edits by the IP. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
    • As an additional heads up - I have intentionally neglected to inform the IP of this discussion as I believe that they will attempt to bring the disruption here. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I support this decision to neglect the information of the IP. The IP has been disruptive for around I month I think now, and in this time they have shown no respect or understanding of the protocols of Wikipedia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I found some other IP's. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  • 2607:FB90:1E0B:E660:0:47:7857:9E01
  • 2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01
  • Peter Andrew Nolan (Possible account name)
  • (Edit Conflict) See also This discussion, where he basically admits he deliberately disrupted the Doc Love article, adding uncited material in violation of WP:BLP (all of which was quickly reverted by myself, Emir, or others) and pretended to be a supporter of Doc Love in an effort to get the page deleted. The page ultimately was deleted not because of the poor quality but because Doc Love was deemed to fail WP:GNG. Which the IP also doesn't seem to understand, given he's apparently taken credit for the article being deleted. And it's a core part of the Wikipedia process that AFD is not cleanup so if Doc Love were notable, his tactics wouldn't have worked and would continue to disrupt Wikipedia once the article was kept. Smartyllama (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The IP is now in a massive edit war with Emir on his (Emir's) talk page. Emir is not in violation of 3RR because one of the exceptions is reverting edits in your own userspace, but the IP certainly is. And he was banned for 3RR violations on Doc Love earlier. Smartyllama (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Another notable example of edit warring is on the page of his alleged grandfather Aleksandr Kamensky. Fortunately this page has now been protected. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
(A related request about the same IP bunny).
  • I support action against this range. I keep seeing the most hellacious, overt trolling on User Talk:Emir of Wikipedia ... richi (hello) 14:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly not here for good purposes. Smartyllama (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - This is why we can't have nice things, Anyway clearly NOTHERE. –Davey2010Talk 16:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - It's sort of died down, but, I'm still getting regular pings from the IP as they re-instate deleted comments on my userpage. I appreciate that Emir is reverting these additions as they tend to happen while I am asleep.[1] Mr rnddude (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Rangeblocked 2607:fb90:1e00::/44 for one month. Katietalk 12:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@KrakatoaKatie: Thanks for the help. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2016 (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:Mztourist's disruptive editing and intention to conduct edit warring[edit]

Content dispute. An RfC is now underway. Please retain the current consensus of the RfC; if that changes, then the change may be implemented. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2016 (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.

Mztourist (talk · contribs) has consistently reverted my editing on Operation Castor without any discussion on talk page.[2] He has unhesitatingly showed off his intention to wage edit warring. Please do something to stop this. Dino nam (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This is laughable. Dino nam (talk · contribs) and his IP sock 113.190.238.202 (talk · contribs) unilaterally and without prior discussion changed the outcome of Operation Castor from "French Union victory" to "Successful French establishment of the Dien Bien Phu outpost". This is part of Dino nam's relentless POV pushing and unwillingness to accept that the Viet Minh/Vietcong/North Vietnamese were ever defeated. This follows a recent bout of edit warring on the Battle of Khe Sanh page where Dino nam also changed the outcome against consensus, I reported him/her for edit-warring but apparently unless you have 3RR'ed that complaint has no weight (see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive329#User:Dino nam reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)) and for use of IP socks, but apparently the privacy of the socker is more important than the fact that they're socking (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam/Archive). This is a classic case of complaining about ones own behavior and deserving of a WP:boomerang. Mztourist (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Before talking about user:Mztourist again, I should say that both of the complaints he made against me mentioned above have already been turned down, so it's ridiculous to repeat them again; in fact mentioning about them may arguably constitute a violation of the WP:NPA policy. I suggest you should rather concentrate on Mztourist's action, as he seem to have no intention to stop his disruptive editing.[3] Dino nam (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
They are relevant because you are continuing with exactly the same behavior, edit-warring and IP socking. Mztourist (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2016 (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.

Wtshymanski continuing to refuse to abide by his edit restriction[edit]

Both of the IPs resolve to the same ISP. Ritchie333 has blocked one, I have blocked the other. Trying to get an editor blocked for good-faith editing is the definition of disruptive editing. Let's move on. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2016 (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.

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is currently under the following edit restriction

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · logs) is banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address. This includes not only a direct reversion of an edit (using the "undo" button) but also indirectly reverting by copy-pasting text from a previous version of an article.

Wtshymanski has consistently refused to abide by the restriction having now been blocked twice for violating the restriction (in April and June 2016). Wtshymanski has demonstrated once again that he has no intention of abiding by it by violating his editing restriction yet agian

Good faith edit made by an IP editor here

Wtshymanski has reverted it here and disguised it by not using the word 'revert' (or any avariation) in the edit summary.

85.255.234.176 (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I assume that you, 85.255.234.176, are the same person as the IP user who made that edit [4]. If that is the case, you are coming here with unclean hands, and your complaint will therefore be thrown out without action. That IP edit was so obviously unconstructive (calling the only two links in an article "overlinking" when they served as the primary defining features for the geographical location of a building, is plainly absurd!) that I find it very hard indeed to imagine any reason an obviously wiki-experienced IP editor could have made it except with the purpose of deliberately provoking Wtshymanski into reverting it. What that IP was doing was borderline vandalism, and what this IP here is doing is done in utterly bad faith. Fut.Perf. 14:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
You assume wrong. I was involved (but not the original complainant) in the original ANI complaint. I have been keeping a watch on proceedings since. I never said that the IP's edit was not unquestionable, but it does appear to be a good faith edit (i.e. not wanton vandalism, especially given their edit history). Wtshymanski is forbidden by his edit restriction to revert the edit either directly or indirectly regardless of its merits. This come about because he was disguising bad faith reverts of good faith edits as reverting vandalism. If the edit was a bad edit (for any reason) then Wtshymanski should have left it for others to revert (or possibly posted an edit request on the talk page). 85.255.234.176 (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
So you admit you've been stalking him? Great. I'll tell you what: provided that IP editor really wasn't you (which I'm not sure about; I consider it entirely possible that you're a liar), if you saw that reverting episode at Brilliant Suspension Bridge, the one and only constructive thing for you to have done would have been to make the revert yourself on Wtshymanski's behalf. The moment you failed to do that but instead ran here to complain, you showed your purpose is not maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia but "getting" that editor. Bad faith behaviour, open-and-shut case. Stop doing that. Fut.Perf. 14:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
This looks like a repeat of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive921#Wtshymanski reverting IP editors in breach of editing restrictions. So what's the problem here? I see Wtshymanski and an IP getting into a silly edit war over linking in an article - in my book that's usually a trout slap each and a request to use the talk page more. Given previous incidents and the topic ban, can somebody give me a solid reason why I shouldn't block? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, if there really is a restriction that punishes obviously good edits like the one we are talking about here, the restriction is rubbish. I, for one, refuse to assume the role of the dick enforcing it (and thereby rewarding the abominable behaviour of the anon stalker/complainant here. Fut.Perf. 14:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, not an unreasonable stance to take, but that leads me to the question of what's changed since April, when Wtshymanski got two weeks off for (as far as I can tell) pretty much the same thing? If consensus is that the restriction is rubbish, let's have a discussion now to remove it. I will say that I'm not exactly impressed by him telling Andy Dingley to go **** himself here. However, conversely, in this edit he refrained from reverting when frankly under normal circumstances it would be perfectly reasonable to do so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I've struck that bit out, and as the one instructed to blossom, I think that's reasonable WP:TO. I sincerely regret that exchange - it was a genuine olive branch, because it was a topic his experience could have added to. But given the past history (and I've been a part of that) I can understand if he doesn't want to hear it from me. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
That blanket restriction is there because there was a real problem and nothing else seemed to work to stop that. So Wtshymanski shouldn't have touched it. But raising it an ANI - that's just looking for a stick to beat him with. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
We either have a banning policy and enforce it, or we don't and turn a blind eye to it when it doesn't suit. Again, I don't really see any difference between this thread and the one I linked to earlier - in both cases I see Wtshymanski making perfectly reasonable edits that I would make myself, and certainly think filing an ANI complaint complaining about a very obvious vandalism revert is without merit and frivolous. Yet, KrakatoaKatie decided that was fair game for a two week block. So unless we get the restriction changed or modified, it seems that Wtshymanski has got the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head, permanently at risk of getting a lengthy block for seemingly no real reason at all depending on which admins turn up to the discussion - and that's hardly fair, is it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
This does seem to be the same editor running the I B Wright/LiveRail/DieSwartzPunkt socks. Lots of article overlap with the 86.157.210.153 (talk) IP, then a sudden baiting on an obscure Canadian bridge article created and recently edited by Wtshymanski. DieSwartzPunkt was heavily involved in the original topic ban. I'd say block the IPs for block evasion, move on, and ignore the trolling. Kuru (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Nothing here that requires admin action against Wtshymanski. ANI is for real problems that disrupt the encyclopedia, not a club for beating someone over a minor technical infraction. I say block the IPs and close this. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2016 (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.

This complaint has been closed on the basis of information that has been completely made up.

First: the claims that there is "Lots of article overlap with the 86.157.210.153 IP", is false. It is just 4 (four) articles. I checked for overlap between Kuru and a random editor on an article he has edited. Since there was a 14 article overlap, that means (by Kuru's standards) that he is more guilty of sock puppetry than the IPs.

Second; there is the claim in the closing summary that the two IPs resolve to the same ISP? No they don't. They are not even vaguely the same. The only thing they have in common is that they resolve to the same country, not evidence of anything. 85.255.234.239 (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I blocked you (and have just blocked this IP for 24 hours) because you were more interested in getting Wtshymanski in trouble than writing an encyclopedia. And please read stop bringing out the "iz it coz I iz IP" victim-seeking excuse and read User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 44#IP editing experiment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive IP user[edit]

96.255.216.19 blocked one month by Someguy1221. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:52, 24 November 2016 (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.

Despite multiple warnings for the past month, 96.255.216.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been warned multiple times for leaving unsourced material, speculative edits, and other disruptive edits. They apparently are refusing to stop. Every time that they receive a warning on their Talk Page, they blank the page. This shows that they have clearly seen the warnings and are choosing to ignore them (they don't even so much as respond). DarkKnight2149 21:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There they go again... ([5], [6]) DarkKnight2149 00:44, 24 November 2016 (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.

Vandalism-only account[edit]

User has been blocked by Bongwarrior. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:40, 24 November 2016 (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 account Olireron appears to be used exclusively for vandalism. DarkKnight2149 04:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

They also appear to be relentlessly attacking Batman, an already protected page. DarkKnight2149 04:37, 24 November 2016 (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.

Reporting User:Peeta Singh[edit]

Nothing to do here (unless Peeta Singh continues to edit war). It is clear "cinema" is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2016 (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.

Disruptive editor, moved multiple pages without edit summaries and not following WP:MOS. Even after intimation on talk page regarding policy violations he went right ahead and moved the pages again without consensus.

First round of disruption

Secound round of disruption

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KhaasBanda (talkcontribs) 05:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I should have edited a summary initially. The WP:CAPITALIZATION policy clearly emphasizes "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name". "Punjabi Cinema" is the proper name for the Punjabi film industry. User:KhaasBanda should have moved the pages back to "List of Punjabi cinema actors and actresses" with consensus here [7] and here [8]. I'm not being disruptive but improving Wikipedia.
Peeta Singh (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
cinema is not capitalised as per consensus. For example see Malayalam cinema or Bhojpuri cinema. KhaasBanda (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Peeta Singh, please learn what a proper name is. It only applies to a person, brand, registered organization, or a geographical entity, not to concepts like the filmmaking industry in a particular country. Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Punjabi Cinema does refer to a unique entity, it refers to the Punjabi film industry. For example, London City Airport refers to the international airport in London, or Bahá'í Faith refers to monotheistic religion which emphasizes the spiritual unity of all humankind. These could also be written as London city airport and Bahá'í faith but that would not be correct. Other communities may use the term "cinema" as a common noun, but the Punjabis use "Punjabi Cinema" as a proper noun. For example, [9], [10], [11] (@0.14, Quote "He's been successful in Punjabi Cinema but after his success he's now going to Bollywood."), [12] (@0.14, Quote: "Binnu Dhillon, only the name is enough, responsible for the improvement of acting in Punjabi Cinema ...")

Peeta Singh, you are incorrect. Perhaps your English skills are not sufficient to grasp this, but the fact that sometimes a word is capitalized does not make it a proper noun, no matter who claims it is and no matter how often it is capitalized and no matter who capitalizes it. Pollywood is a proper noun, but Punjabi cinema is not. Please stop these moves and these incorrect assumptions, before you receive a sanction. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, BBC News, Indian Navy, Hindustan Times, Indian Ocean etc can be proper nouns but Punjabi Cinema can not. Where is the logic? On what basis is "Punjabi Cinema" not a proper noun? I'm improving Wikipedia, so on what basis will I be sanctioned?

Why has the "Punjabi Cinema" article been moved to "Punjabi cinema" without proper consensus? [13]

Peeta Singh (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

To repeat, proper nouns are persons, brands, registered organizations, or geographical entities, not concepts like the filmmaking industry in a particular country. The fact that sometimes a word is capitalized does not make it a proper noun, no matter who claims it is and no matter how often it is capitalized and no matter who capitalizes it. Pollywood is a proper noun, but Punjabi cinema is not. If your English skills are too poor to comprehend this, then that cannot be helped; you are still incorrect. Softlavender (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2016 (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 Ron Lucci has removed a speedy deletion tag on an article I've previously deleted; he is the article creator[edit]

*Article re-deleted by Someguy1221.
  • Ron Lucci, DO NOT remove speedy-deletion tags from articles you created. Stop recreating articles on non-notable subjects.
  • Sk8erPrince, stop saying that YOU deleted pages -- only admins can delete pages. You AfDed the article.
(non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2016 (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 aforementioned user has recreated a page that I've previously deleted, with barely any improvements (in fact, I'd argue that it was an even worse revision because the previous revision that got deleted at least had two [weak] references at the bottom). This revision has ZERO references. He is starting show disruption signs (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS) - see 2) Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. Looking at Ron's talk page, it would appear that Ron has not bothered to peer review his articles before publication. While not an offense, a poorly structured article that is recreated without addressing its previous issues lay the grounds for speedy deletion. I placed the WP:G4 tag at the very top of the recreated article, hoping that it gets speedy deleted by an admin. However, Ron has removed the tag by himself, even though he's not allowed to. Quoting the G4 notice: "If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." Ron has blatantly violated the directions on the notice (since he is the article creator), hence I request that the page be speedy deleted, and that Ron be disallowed to recreate the same article until it has been peer reviewed and expanded enough to meet WP:WHYN. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Page has been deleted by User:Someguy1221 , thank you Someguy. Let's get this purple boxed and go edit something notable. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) (Now THIS... I did.) 07:52, 23 November 2016 (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.

Refusing to leave Edit Summaries - User:Neptune's Trident[edit]

There's no rule that edit summaries are required unless they blanked some passage/content. It seems like Neptune's Trident is leaving edit summaries; if he edits without explanation, that discussion should be made on his talk page, not on an ANI thread. WikiPancake 🥞 14:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neptune's Trident (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Is there anything that can be done when an editor refuses to leave edit summaries. I left a message on his talk page (which he quickly removed) and then just continued on with the behavior. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There isn't any requirement for anyone to leave edit summaries. It is helpful for other editors to scan quickly what was done but if someone doesn't use them that is a personal preference. -- GB fan 19:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I just saw above a similar section, #User:Sk8erPrince not using edit summaries when nominating articles for deletion. What is happeneing there where an editing restriction is put in place if what they are doing is disruptive can happen. You would have to show how it is disruptive though. -- GB fan 19:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Has the editor been making any major edits that the average editor would disagree with, and not leaving summaries? This is a case by case issue (referring to the above section). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Somedifferentstuff, I just noticed you did not notify Neptune's Trident as required. I have left them the notification on their talk page. -- GB fan 20:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The lack of edit summaries is the least of the problems with User:Neptune's Trident. I would say that the main problem with this user is the blatant promotion of non=notable film critic J.C. Maçek III. There was a recent discussion on Jimbo's talk page about Neptune's Trident's creation of an article including obvious BLP violations. Of course, there is a GamerGate/Sad Puppies connection here which Google will happily supply if you ask. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  • He is now leaving edit summaries. I have no comment regarding the other allegations here, particularly as no diffs have been supplied. Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2016 (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.

Vile insults[edit]

User:Whisper of the heart sent a vile insult against me in one of the edit summaries - diff.

Here is the translation:

Extended content
从前
Once upon a time
有个
there is
T开头的
starting with T, as an adjective
智障
mentally retarded, as a noun


this one is more difficult to translate, but it's somewhere in between "arbitrary" and "disruptively"
回退
rollback
别人的
of others
编辑
edits
yet
不给
not give
理由
reason


后来
later
he, used possessively
亲妈
(biological) mother
升天
went to heaven, usually as a curse for death
indicates a perfect tense


In English this would be: Once upon a time there was a mentally retarded person starting with a T, who rollback edits of others without giving a reason; later his mother have went to heaven.

There is no excuse for such insults and of course they are posted in Chinese which is not the language I speak. In addition this user goes around making POV edits, refusing to discuss the issues at all, ignoring all arguments claiming how they were not given etc. But that is not relevant here, it's only to show that this is an extremely difficult person to work with.

This has been going on for quite a while now and he was previously blocked on Commons for a similar incident. The insults also had to be removed from the system because they were so nasty - similar incident on Wikimedia Commons.

I seek protection from such personal attacks.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

First, I feel terribily sorry and apologize for my inappropriate language, I guarantee that I will be more polite and calm in communicating in the future. However, I disagree Twofortnights' announcement of so called POV edits and refusing discussions. In fact, my edits have proper sources which fits wikipedia's policy but he just doesn't recognize. In addition, I actively participate discuss, but due to Twofortnights' negative attitude, the discussion sometimes cannot go smoothly, this makes me mad from time to time. Overall, I understand that personal attack is no acceptible for any reason and I will pay more attention to my behavior in the future, but I think this incident is isolated and no extra protection is needed. --Whisper of the heart 10:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
For the admins attention, the same user said the same thing before (apology and promises) - [14]. So it's obviously a dishonest apology made to avoid the block and he has no intention to stop. In addition next to the supposed apology above he claims I cause his behavior but on Commons AN it was already found that analyzing the edits, there is not "any reason for it to be occurring".--Twofortnights (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Twofortnights, do you already read that language fluently without the need of a translator? ―Mandruss  10:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Never mind, I now see above that you do not.
I've said it before, this is the English Wikipedia and all personal attacks must be in English. (That's satirical humor, by the way.) Twofortnights, you would not have felt insulted if you hadn't expended the effort to translate what are otherwise a bunch of gibberish noise characters to you. It was almost as if you were looking for a reason to be insulted and bring an ANI complaint. I favor a quick close here. ―Mandruss  10:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Just leaving a note that the translations were given by me. If there's anything wrong with my translation, it's not Twofortnights's fault. Also note that the edit summary of Special:Diff/748721461 is grossly inappropriate as well (if necessary I can provide a translation for this). Other edit summaries in Chinese may have the same issue, including Special:Diff/736992025 but this one is more difficult to understand with excessive usage of homophones. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I didn't even see those, it shows a pattern and I now believe this account needs to be blocked, he obviously won't stop doing it. In addition I extend my plea to remove those edit summaries from the system as well as they are not edit summaries as such, just a platform to post insults that are more difficult to remove than comments on talk pages.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I am pretty sure you can't go around and throw insults with it being considered irrelevant only because it's in a foreign language. I had to invest my effort only because the edit summary was in a foreign language and I wanted to know what was in the edit summary (pretty normal or not?) only to find vile insults against me. Either way as a bare minimum the edit summary needs to be removed as it is not an edit summary at all.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Mandruss do you want to AGF even a little here or nah; It was almost as if you were looking for a reason to be insulted and bring an ANI complaint. I favor a quick close here. - oh, so you don't mind if I insult you in a language you won't understand? that's fair game for you? It's not for most other editors - such as the OP and myself. Some types of comments are never acceptable. This was one of those types and the language used is irrelevant. Further, this was an NPA purely to be an NPA. It was an intentional deliberate attack without context - look at the edit, this was not angered edit-warring, it was a normal minor edit to remove an unnecessary space that was coupled with an offensive comment. Whisper had never edited that page prior to leaving that rude comment. That brings up two other issues, possible WP:HARASS and WP:STALK (User edits regularly on visa policy pages). Mr rnddude (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I completely disagree. It's a personal attack and absolutely against Wikipedia's policies on civility. The fact that it is in another language is absolutely irrelevant and it should not be dismissed or discounted simply because of that fact alone. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I support an appropriate sanction. I note several previous warnings for bad behaviour on the user's Talk page. These issued by several editors, not only the OP. (They've all since been blanked.) ... richi (hello) 10:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I would certainly support a rule against the use of a foreign language in any interaction between editors on English Wikipedia. Clear communication is difficult enough when we all speak the same language. Violation of the rule after warning should be blockable as disruption. ―Mandruss  11:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I'm tempted to propose such a rule at WP:VPP right now, but I'll wait for other comments. It seems a no-brainer to me. It would facilitate communication, and it would put an end to the occasional ANI complaints like this one. It would require not only a rule change but a new warning template. ―Mandruss  11:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
There is WP:SPEAKENGLISH but it only refers to talk pages. There is also Template:Uw-english. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Then I would modify that template to encompass all communication between editors, and I would modify policy - WP:DE? - as appropriate to make this blockable after warning. ―Mandruss  11:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I would oppose a blanket ban on the use of languages other than English. For one thing, if we have editors with limited command of English, it can be very helpful for people who speak their native language to be able to step in - and I've seen that approach being very effective over the years. I also don't see any problem with editors using other languages for the occasional bit of interpersonal talk when it's done in good faith and can help build the encyclopedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
If an editor has a limited command of English, why are they editing English Wikipedia? As a way to learn English? There are more appropriate and more effective ways to learn English off-wiki. ―Mandruss  11:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I've seen plenty of people with limited English contributing here very constructively, given a bit of help. In fact, I've done copy editing myself for editors whose English has been poor, and the collaboration has certainly been of benefit to the encyclopedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree with Boing here, this could be useful on article and article talk pages as well as other wiki pages, but, there's no reason to blanket ban communication in other languages. Especially not on user and user talk pages. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, then we have the question of whether the defendant here knew they were violating any rule. For the future, maybe a clarification in WP:NPA would address that problem, but that wouldn't help with this complaint. We also have the question of whether this clears the PA bar, which is wildly inconsistent depending on the parties involved. And the broader problem of the frequent admin failure to enforce Wikipedia behavior policy in general. ―Mandruss  12:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but the language is really not relevant. We had a comment, it was identified as problematic, and it has been dealt with in the usual inconsistent manner (as any judgment-based system always is) - just the same as if it had been in English. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, business as usual. I withdraw. ―Mandruss  12:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I should add that I'm not unsympathetic to the issues of inconsistency and our failure to really even define behaviour policy properly let alone enforce it - but after seeing so many efforts over the years, I really haven't the faintest idea of how we can improve things (though I guess that's for another forum). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Well I can't withdraw if you reply to me. LOL. It doesn't seem so complicated to me. The spirit of WP:BATTLEGROUND (for example) is quite clear and simple, and we shouldn't need a full-blown week-long trial, with no rules of engagement, to sanction violations of that spirit. In my view, if an admin can't make such a call correctly, they have no business being an admin. The corollary is that admins should be largely immune to attacks on their judgment in such cases, and they are not. Figuring out to fix this isn't hard, it's the political obstacles to such change, and that's the result of being self-governed. My ultimate position seems to alternate between (1) WMF intervention is required, and (2) the problem is intractable, so we should stop wasting our time discussing it. You're right, it's for another forum. ―Mandruss  13:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Boing! said Zebedee. While articles and open discussion should be written in English, there are many situations where editing and communicating in a foreign language is completely fine. His example is perfect. If two editors and just laying back and chatting with one another on one of their talk pages and the conversation is casual and not against policy etc, what honest and justifiable right would I really have to jump in there and say "Hey, speak English! using any other language is banned!"? This is one example out of many that shows how enacting this kind of ban would not only be a terrible idea, but also really really silly :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment That edit summary was really offensive. It should be considered a 9/10 on the offensive scale. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Would a revdel be wise? RD2 covers grossly insulting comments doesn't it? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
No. It is not in that category. It is not grossly insulting, but it is a serious attack. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Seconded. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Just to let you know, it is hard for me to judge personally, as I am not a native reader of Chinese. But I am in China and surrounded by Chinese people right now and they read it. Consensus is 9/10. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for getting input from native Chinese speakers - based on that, I've rev-deleted the edit summary as grossly offensive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I meant to add that 9/10 seems close enough ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
No worries, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Fine by me. Revdelling is not unreasonable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Anna Frodesiak. Would the other two insults raised by Zhuyifei1999 above [15] and [16] also fall in the category?--Twofortnights (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
[17] doesn't seem to make sense to us and [18] is a 9.5/10 on the offensive scale. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Google Translate is unhelpful. The latter diff says something about dog food. Patient Zerotalk 12:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Should GT help, here's a literal translation of the former: A system you stick, you pull pull ye not to your body inches to the wall? Patient Zerotalk 12:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Homophones are used here: 制杖 => 智障, 拔拔 => 爸爸. No obvious meaning in "你身寸到墙上呢?" --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
That makes a bit more sense Zhuyifei1999 - revdel appropriate here, then? Patient Zerotalk 12:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I feel this is more like "Stop beating your head against the wall, stupid".--Auric talk 12:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Eh, Patient, it makes no sense to the Chinese reading Chinese. Why would google translate be helpful here... Mr rnddude (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
You never know Mr rnddude - maybe someone could ascertain whether or not the edit summary truly was offensive with a literal translation. If anything, I'm not too sure about it myself, but I only have a very basic command of the language. Patient Zerotalk 12:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
It is hard for translation software because he is using characters that are homonyms. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Anna Frodesiak. Patient Zerotalk 12:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
In translation the comment certainly looks like an insult. And I’m not excusing the editor who made that edit summary. But most non-Chinese readers would have to take quite a lot of trouble to actually get the insult. And even then, one is left wondering - is this some kind of mild Chinese idiomatic/ proverbial saying? Most of the impact of that insult is wholly lost on most users of en.wiki? Just saying. Martinevans123 (talk)

─────────────────────────

Which one? the "mentally retarded" comment, the dog food one, or the makes no sense one? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
All three? In the original Chinese, of course. Where it's difficult to see there are three. The dog food must have escaped me. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Whisper of the heart, if you do not end up blocked over all of this, do not write anything like that ever again, okay? We must remain polite. That is really important here. You are welcome here, but none of that, okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note that this user made apologies and promises before on Commons and then went on to spread the hate here on, as we've learned now, multiple occasions. Even in the sole response here he claims it's an isolated incident and only because I made him mad (in fact it was his first ever edit in that article, there was no dispute instead he merely removed one extra space and as we've all seen this was definitely not isolated). I think a block would be in order, not because I am vindictive, but because this is already a second chance that the user failed to use. Even if direct insults in Chinese stop I am afraid I can only expect further harassment via other means.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
That's a fair point. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Any spare Chinese insults are welcome at my Talk Page where I will happily refuse to translate them.
Homophonia will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Thincat (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but you can see why people get upset when inverts engage in aural sex in public. EEng 02:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
To @Twofortnights:, @Anna Frodesiak: and all other users in this discussion, I have realized that my action make other people unpleasant and it's very inappropriate in Wikipedia. I will follow the etiquette and avoid personal attact in the future. Once more, I am sorry for inappropriate language usage this time. --Whisper of the heart 01:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Whisper of the heart. Okay. Thank you for your understanding. I will not block you. If others wish to, that is their choice. My view is that you understand what not to do in the future. You wish to remain a part of this project. You will carry on as a constructive member of the community. If there is anything you ever need or have any questions, please ask. Thank you, and happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Whisperer of the heart, thank you for taking the time to come here and apologize for your behavior and acknowledge that it was not appropriate conduct. It was a very serious personal attack and I'm very certain that you were aware that this is not acceptable conduct when you did so, but I will acknowledge your apology and hold you to your statement that you will follow Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines and refrain from any such actions like this in the future. Because of this acknowledgment, I will endorse Anna Frodesiak's decision not to block you for this. Please do not let this happen again; it's not the temperament and conduct that is expected from an editor whose goals are in-line with positively building and improving Wikipedia. If you need to talk to anybody, you have any questions or needs help, or if you'd like a mentor to keep you on-track - you're more than welcome to come to me and I will help you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The dog food one doesn't make a lot of sense because of the 吔 character. Largely because this is a southern dialect, specifically to the Zhuhai region. It means "to eat". Some of it doesn't seem to make sense because of the way the characters are being used. They're the written form of spoken words that would otherwise not actually have a formal character. This is quite characteristic of southern Cantonese. Basically, the "dog food" one says "go home and eat dog food, you grub".

Also, another Cantonese characteristic is to shorten a sentence removing characters that don't need to be said because the general usage is understood. For 你身寸到墙上呢, it means, loosely "are you wider than a wall?" or even more loosely "are you fatter than a house?". The full sentence would be closer to 你身材尺寸達到墙以上呢 = "your body measurements are bigger than a wall". In this example, 身材尺寸 has been abbreviated to 身寸. 身材 means figure but 身 means body and has basically the same meaning. 尺寸 literally means "feet-inches" or measurement, since both relate to measurement removing the "feet" character doesn't take anything away from the overall meaning, provided you're familiar with the dialect. This is why GT can't work with Cantonese unless the full phrasing is used. Blackmane (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Series of very brief pages on highly technical subjects[edit]

There has been a rash of recent new pages from new editors that appear to be on highly specialized technical topics, but with no links or even much context whatsoever. See Stress in rotating rings, Space resistance to radiation, Valve timing diagram, Capabilities of computer control, etc. Not sure at all what to do about these since they appear to be abandoned after being created. It alomost looks like homework of some sort. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This looks like some sort of school project. The articles you mentioned above were all copyright infringements and have been deleted. If you find more such pages, please check for copyright issues and inform the initial creators of this discussion. De728631 (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Doing so though many times I'm not finding it immediately, perhaps they are being copied from textbooks. See Advanced automation functions, Differential mobility spectrometer. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
And this is now getting absurd. They are popping up like crazy now, all from different accounts yet obviously connected. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, it seems like these are all/mostly notable subjects. If someone can figure our how to get back to the source, and explain that even a short stub -- paraphrased from a source or sources -- would be welcome, that would be great. EEng 20:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Some recent editors doing this - User:Shangkeinus2016eps, User:Yadav.abhi, User:Dpkanjo, User:AMIT KUMAR9084114320, User:Omveersinghkemoriya, that's just in the past few hours. Can we open up an investigation and block this range somehow? Blocking individual users doesn't help because they keep creating new accounts, protecting pages doesn't help because they keep changing the article title. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • There's an SPI at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivam268 where opinion appears to be that this is a class assignment. Probably the instructor told them to make pages from things in books. A few were subjects where A10 came in as well as copyvio. Peridon (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

One revert rule is protecting a user instead of an article[edit]

2A1ZA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, the article Human rights in Rojava is under the general sanctions for the Syrian Civil War. The article imply listing violations in a place named Rojava, hence it has a geographic scope. This scope was agreed to be land controlled by the founders of Rojava after a long discussion

When the article was fully protected, User 2A1ZA asked for a controversial paragraph and out of the scope to be inserted but the admin told him to reach a consensus. Such a consensus didnt happen and then the protection ended and 2A1ZA was told that does not need to ask an admin to make edits for him anymore. The user understood this as if the admin was telling that he can have his edit inserted into the article. Today, 2A1ZA inserted the paragraph implying that it was the admin gave him the authority in his edit summary.

Does the one revert rule protect edits out of the scope of a certain article ?

How will the one revert rule stop this kind of behavior? It only benefit 2A1ZA. He is inserting controversial edits with no consensus and no discussion and hiding behind the one revert rule. I understand perfectly the damage of edit warring, but is this the only criteria here? He can do whatever he likes as long as edit warring is stopped? Please help me understanding how Wikipedia is going now. Cause all I can see is that an editor can take advantage of the rules. From now on, he will insert whatever he like, with no consensus and no talk page and hide behind the one edit rule. His edit is against the consensus and the scope of the article, yet he is allowed to keep it and others are the ones who should take it to the talk page!!.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Attar-Aram syria, please read the edit related discussion on the article talk page. And the "agreement" you claim here on your desire to radically narrow the scope of Section 2 (""Human rights issues with Syrian Civil War armed forces in the region"") of that article, in a pretty absurd manner which apparently shall simply exclude human rights violations of Syrian civil war parties of your liking, does not exist. You implicitly admit that, when talking about an RFC to seek enforce your view, and leaving alone the many elements of that section 2 of the article that do not fit your desire to radically narrow its scope. Please engage in a constructive good faith discussion on the article talk page, or initiate the RFC you talk about if you prefer that. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion was memorized by me. All editors, excluding you, agreed that the very large scope was unacceptable. The actual scope is logical since Rojava is a non historic region and a certain territory become a "Rojava" only after the said entity annex that certain region. Anyway, this paragraph you inserted was controversial and had no consensus regardless of the scope. You can see in the answer of the admin that you need to get a consensus for it first.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:1RR does not prevent someone from making an edit once, nor from someone else undoing that edit once. That it didn't get consensus previously is good evidence that the undoing--pending discussion to get consensus--is the right way forward. DMacks (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear DMacks, on the same article right this morning, Attar-Aram syria once again without consensus and against my clear objection removed an existing paragraph on FSA torture videos, see here (and compare article history). Would you suggest to reinstate that paragraph pending discussion as well? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Not "once again", I was within my reverting capacity as it has been more than 40 hours for my last revert. I did my first revert on 18 November 10:14. Today, I did my second revert after 40 hours or more. The paragraph he is talking about was deleted by another user, and supported by me, and it is out of the scope of the article and was discussed in the talk page. The consensus was to deleted it (2 to 1) and based on the scope of the article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
If the content has been there for a while, then "removal" is an edit, and "re-insertion" is the first undoing of it. Assuming the content isn't grossly offensive or completely uncited, the pre-existing status quo should remain pending an ongoing discussion. A timeframe of 30-40 hours is not sufficient to prove "long-standing/status-quo", especially for long-term controversial topics. And no part of WP:1RR is a license to revert every >24h...edit-warring over a timeframe of 40 hours is as likely to get you blocked as literal 1RR in a specific timeframe. DMacks (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
DMacks, It has been a long time for that paragraph, but I thought the rule was literal: every 24 hours. Okay, Im in the middle of writing a new article See here. I cant afford to be blocked for such a reason. Will reverting myself be a good measure to avoid the violation ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear DMacks, the paragraph concerned has been up there for a long time, it definitely was part of the article while it had full protection in late October, see here. Reinstate now? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted my self (though the paragraph is out of the scope of the article).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The dispute between these two users came to a head recently at SPI in which I advised Attar-Aram syria to read the essay on forum-shopping. They had already tried to get 2A1ZA blocked in previous ANI thread in September and didn't get the answer they wanted, and a month later tried the same evidence at SPI. This new thread is a continuation of the same dispute; if it continues further, I don't think it would be unreasonable to start discussing topic bans. There doesn't seem to be any interest from either side of this dispute in discussion to find a common ground, only gaming the rules to continue reverting to their preferred version. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Ivanvector, it wasnt shopping, you demanded a proof and the IP didnt have it while I did and it was a very strong one and I still cant believe how it was handled. Anyway, this isnt a continuation of the dispute, its about the role of the 1rr. As for "getting" the result I want, can you at least look at the case of September and tell me that nothing was suspicious ! If I see something that imply cheating, I will talk about it and I will not shut up in fear of being accused of playing games or pursuing a result I want. BTW, this case has been resolved before you commented. I also advise you to go through your comment cause it contained a false info when you said that I used the same evidence from the September case. I did not do it cause the evidence you are talking about did not exist in September. Most importantly, this isnt just me and the editor; many others have reported him, just follow his talk page and you will see. Note, to debunk what you accused me of (that I play the rules to get my preferred version), read my last reply before you commented, you will notice that I reverted myself and brought back my non-preferred version. Oh, and before you commented, I approached the user on his talk page to find a common ground Here (so everything you said is not accurate)--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

One revert rule is protecting a user instead of an article[edit]

Attar-Aram syria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This morning, Attar-Aram syria has once again removed a paragraph (FSA Jarabulus torture videos) from the Human rights in Rojava article, see edit here (the flag issue is not relevant, it was mistakenly removed with the revert edit before), while fully aware that he is doing so against clear and express objection (and without a serious reason to delete in substance). As I had just reinstated that paragraph immediately before, the 1RR rule prevents me from reinstating the paragraph for a day. Shall this 1RR rule really protect an editor who seeks to arbitrarily delete human rights violations by a Syrian Civil War party of his liking from the article? Should this paragraph be reinstated pending discussion? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a repetition of the same argument above, hence, my reply is also above.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: For anyone confused. This is just what opened this report, just reversed, where Attar tried to call out 2A, rather than the other way around (as has happened here). MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) (Now THIS... I did.) 21:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

More Twinkle nonsense[edit]

Neddy1234 (talk · contribs) added 2016 results to the presidential elections table in Alaska. This was reverted in this edit by Magnolia677 (talk · contribs) using Twinkle with the boilerplate edit summary "Unsourced". Of course, there is no end to the amount of garbage being added to the encyclopedia as of late related to this election and attributed to the mere existence of reliable sources, so I smelled bullshit and called bullshit by reverting Magnolia's edit. My edit was reverted here with another boilerplate edit summary, "Please do not add this data without a source, per WP:PROVEIT. Discuss on talk page if you disagree.". While it's great and all that some folks are such experts when it comes to Twinkle and enjoy picking low-hanging fruit rather than putting real effort into building an information resource, it's plainly obvious that letting scripts dictate how and when to edit Wikipedia in lieu of exercising any common sense whatsoever will only kill the project in the end. There's also the aspect of whether we're here to offer encyclopedic information on notable topics or we're here merely to repeat particular sources, but I'd rather save that argument for later.

My edit summary shows that plenty was wrong with Magnolia's rationale, so I poked around during what little free time I had earlier. First of all, the edit which started this is improper. The home page of the Alaska Division of Elections website prominently mentions "Unofficial Election Results" at the top of the page. This means that these results are preliminary and not certified, which further means that they'll have to be revised at some point. As there is a long history of that particular practice occurring here and no evidence that's it's being discouraged, I'm not so sure what to say. As I mentioned, the entire table is unsourced. It has existed in the article since September 2008 and has been unsourced the entire time. Judging from the edit summary which added the table, it may have previously existed in the article, but I don't have time to track that down. That edit summary hinted that it was restored to keep the article in line with other U.S. state articles. I didn't go through every other state article, but most of the ones I did look at had similar tables, mostly unsourced. Of particular interest is Massachusetts, a GA, which likewise contains an unsourced table. The few that were sourced were to Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. I question whether this website really is a reliable source or merely a convienent/easy concatenation of information which can be reliably sourced elsewhere. Minnesota contains a table of historical election results for not only the presidential race, but gubernatorial and senatorial races, with a source to Leip at the top of the table. Clicking on that URL leads to a page which only mentions the results of the 2016 presidential race! Obviously, if you're really worried about sourcing and nothing else, this is a real can of worms here. The second main issue I brought up in my edit summary has to do with NPOV. The vast majority of these tables only give results for the two largest parties. This can be a problem, especially where the respectable or even winning by-state totals for Ross Perot and George Wallace are obscured by relegation to the table's footnotes or not even mentioned at all. I could come up with a solution, but I'm not sure it would satisfy NPOV.

In the course of this poking around, the one thing which really caught my attention was this notice on Neddy's talk page from earlier this year. This caused me to wonder if Magnolia is stalking Neddy's edits and if this is the real cause for all this. I've already pointed out that lack of sourcing for this particular edit is a red herring, and if you were to take that seriously, it would be akin to sticking a child's bandage on a severed jugular vein. Anyway, I've already made my feelings known about ANI, so I don't know if I'll be back to check on this. I just wanted to put the information out. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I've been watching this unfold but thus far had not put my oar in. My observations are as follows:
  • While none of the election results are certified yet, the race has been called by reliable sources.
  • So I do think including them, with the idea that actual totals will be added when the results are certified, is permissible, iff a source is attached.
  • In any event, I think it's a shame that none of the involved parties tried actual discussion to resolve this, preferring instead to trade comments in edit summaries, which is never the right way to resolve anything. WP:BRD was not followed.

Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: - I have about 6,000 U.S. cities, towns and counties in my watchlist, and in the past two weeks I have reverted about 10 different editors who have added election results without a source. In some cases I left messages on editor's talk pages, like here and here. I also took time to check the unsourced election results that some editors has added against a reliable source, and in some cases, it was not correct. This is probably why WP:V is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. In this edit, which you mention above, you were politely asked to explain on the article's talk page why you feel unsourced election results should be added to the Alaska article, but instead of discussing your concern there, you instead came here. Furthermore, your edit summary here isn't going to win you a Barnstar of Diplomacy. Finally, you suggest that I need to put "real effort into building an information resource". In the past four years I've made 37,032 edits and created 285 articles. In fact, no editor in the history of Wikipedia has added more Love, Love, Love, Love, Love than me. So please, don't be so cheeky. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Maybe take your own advice here and there. I have twice as many edits as you, so what? Swaggering like this is distinctly unhelpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Pride is not swagger my friend. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
This isn't a Twinkle issue. If Twinkle didn't exist, Magnolia677 would have used undo. If undo didn't exist, Magnolia677 would have done it manually. This is because the root of the problem is that information was added without a source (WP:BURDEN). Why bring up the tool when it's the behavior you're concerned about? You do realize it's just a way to make reverting and warnings slightly easier, right? It's not like Huggle where it shows you an edit that might be vandalism and encourages you to revert it so you can get on to the next in line. clpo13(talk) 00:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe that the at least a part of the issue here is common courtesy and the tool usage. I constantly observe the frustration of new editors on @Magnolia677:'s talk page after their edits are removed with a terse comment 'unsourced', and I do not believe that Magnolia677's methods are always effective. Although, I'm sure that Magnolia677's intentions are noble, the usage of a tool tends to mechanize the process, and this mechanization discourages proper dialog and human cooperation. After all, it's better to engage a new user than to deter her; it's better to properly source added text than to remove it entirely; it's better to politely discuss a controversial issue, than to approach it with automated edits and/or with elliptical remarks. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Administrators, I request you to kindly take some action on The Discoverer[edit]

No evidence of any longterm problematic behaviors. Please take editing disputes and content issues to the article's talk page. If needed, employ some kind of official Dispute Resolution if that eventually becomes necessary. Softlavender (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dear Administrators, The Discoverer is deleting the contents of this page without discussing on talk page even after requests. He want to somehow show that deaths were associated with demonetization. It is very serious thing. Spreading wrong information can have very bad impact on people. There are about 20 to 25 thousand views to this page daily. This can have serious implications on Indian Economy. I would like to request to take appropriate action against him. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not personally seeing that The Discoverer has made any major or truly significant deletions from Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation, and you have not provided any DIFFs of proof of longterm abuse. In fact, this seems to be a content dispute that belongs on the talk page of the article. There was one short discussion in which you apparently did not completely receive the answer you wanted, so it appears you have raised your level of hysteria and accusations, posting notices anywhere you could think of rather than posting neutrally worded and neutrally titled threads on the article's talk page, and availing yourself of some form of official Disupte Resolution if needed. Please go back to the article's talk page and engage civilly with other editors rather than threatening and becoming overly alarmist. Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Not more of this nonsense? Is it the same people arguing? Is there actually a user conduct problem this time? Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
No. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Wait, which of my questions are you answering? The second? Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Here The Discoverer has removed a well referenced source giving the reason that he finds that it is unrelated / irrelevant. Is it ok to remove a reference like that only becasue one think that they are not important? I am learning new editing styles here. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
My response is two fold, first, you are clearly not formatting the citations according to the established practice at the article. This is per WP:CITEVAR guidelines. So, I am not surprised to see it removed when that sentence already has four other citations. Second, this page is only for problems requiring administrative intervention. You would be best served taking this to the article talk page as that is where you can and should get feedback from other editors. If you need help, consider WP:TEAHOUSE for questions about editing and/or editing practices. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2016 (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.

Removal of well sourced content[edit]

OP blocked for 48 hours bu iridescent. Blackmane (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2016 (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 Jytdog has been a persistent thorn in the side when it comes to improvements to performance-enhancing substance. The well-sourced proposed edits were discussed on the article's Talk page. The article was updated per the discussion, and then in defiance of the discussion, Jytdog removed the added content. This is not acceptable, and there is no further discussion to be had about it. There is no further concession I can make. The content is well sourced and it belongs in the article. It was very conservatively added as it is. Jytdog's behavior as someone who always wants things to go his own way, in explicit disagreement with those of others, has been concerning. --Hyperforin (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Would you care to explain why you used the edit summary of this edit to engage in personal attacks against another editor? Furthermore, despite your implied claim of consensus, what I see in the talk is a number of people expressing reservations about the proposed content and the sources, and you arguing for it. When, more recently, Jytdog pointed out one particular problem with the proposed text without mentioning anything else, you apparently took that as agreement to insert it. I'm guessing that you might want to withdraw this request and return to talk before you discover an unpleasant surprise. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
WTF?! Looks like a load of broken markup and original research pushing dodgy views was removed. The editor who put it there would be more properly under the spotlight. So yes, boomerang. Alexbrn (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Please read WP:BOOMERANG. This isn't nice. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
This edit appears to be a WP:COPVIO. The quote was too long. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Has anyone ever accused someone else of "removing sourced content" and been right (or honest) about the content being properly sourced? The title of this section is a dead giveaway that something is wrong. I'm a merciful type, so I'll say to Hyperforin that they should withdraw the above comment and request that this thread be closed. If they refuse, I would propose they be issued a final warning and then the thread can be closed. Hijiri 88 (やや) 19:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) BTW, persistent thorn in the side is not a common turn of phrase; clearly what is meant is persistent thorn in my side. Is this user trying to game the system by disguising their grossly uncivil language/OWN-mentality so that they can say the exact same thing without actually saying it? Clearly they didn't mean persistent thorn in our side because (a) more than one person would have more than one side and (b) Jytdog was clearly in the majority and the OP was the only one on his side of the discussion. Hijiri 88 (やや) 19:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Is a single one of you (Personal attack removed) actually paying attention to the material that was removed in the edit? All I see is attempts to sideline the point at hand. I don't care about the quote - it was added only for clarity. The statement in question is "The literature is supportive of adaptogenic properties of R. rosea and S. chinensis." This statement was thoroughly supported by the added quote. And fuck your mercy Hijiri88 - you have no power over me. --Hyperforin (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang time[edit]

Propose indef block for Hyperforin (talk · contribs) per the above. Appears to be an SPA (though I'm not a subject expert), gross battleground mentality, refusal to listen or drop the stick, and assumption that everyone who disagrees is a "cliquey quack". Obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. This isn't a traditional newcomer situation -- they've been here since January and have more than 600 edits. Hijiri 88 (やや) 19:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Hijiri 88 (やや) 19:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've just blocked him for 48 hours; give him the chance to either demonstrate that he can cope with working on a collaborative project, or prove to us that he can't. ‑ Iridescent 19:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Didn't see that he'd already been blocked. I think an indef would have been acceptable per the above disruption, but let's see how this pans out. Hijiri 88 (やや) 19:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I tried. Given the hissy-fit last time he was blocked I don't expect this one to improve his behaviour—some people just aren't cut out for a collaborative environment—but he deserves the chance to prove me wrong. ‑ Iridescent 19:54, 24 November 2016 (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:Carl Anthony Reece[edit]

User globally locked by Stewards (non-admin closure) -- sandgemADDICT yeah? 11:15, 25 November 2016 (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 really wonder what is the deal with this user: Carl Anthony Reece (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). I strongly suspect that this is a bot account spamming talk pages. The user also modified his signature to remove a link to his user/talk page and responds to User:SineBot marking his post as unsigned, which makes him post another response, lather, rinse, repeat. (I have blocked the account, but he didn't seem to notice.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Looks like he's now blocked globally. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP editing at Protests against Donald Trump[edit]

Socks blocked. (non-admin closure) GABgab 23:35, 24 November 2016 (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.

63.143.194.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been edit-warring on the protests against Donald Trump article for over a half-hour, regarding edits believed to be WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Despite multiple warnings and advice on edit summaries to take it to the talk page, he has continued to edit-war and also exhibit aggressive, WP:NOTHERE behavior. Some of his edit summaries are overly indicative of said behavior ([19] [20]). When he finally chose to discuss it on the talk page, he simply carried his behavior over there ([21] [22]). Right now he seems to have calmed down a little and is participating, but has apparently indicated some sort of WP:OWNERSHIP attitude about the article ([23]).

As a result of his edit-warring and aggressiveness, I reported him to WP:AN3RR ([24]) and WP:AVI ([25]). I later realized the latter report was a mistake, since AVI wasn't the appropriate thread to report his behavior, and vacated it. However, before that happened, he accused me of vandalism by filing that report and then proceeded to follow my lead, reporting me on AVI. Also, he linked Inverted Pyramid ([26]), claiming it was an WP:MOS article or something along those lines...but the link directs me to an article about a skylight in a French shopping mall/museum. He may have been referring to this article, but he recommended me to read it for "writing tips on how to structure encylopedia articles", and I'm not sure why he would do that. Parsley Man (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The point is that it is a principle of good newspaper + encylopedia writing that the lead contains answers to "Who, what , why, when, where, how." My point was that the Protests article must contain, in the lead, an explanation of WHY people are protesting. That's all. It's an extremely well accepted principle of writing for these sorts of texts and well established and known around here and in the wider world. 63.143.194.13 (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
As for accusing you of vandalism, I accused you of vandalizing the AVI page, by using it to report edits you disagreed with which were obviously not vandalism. 63.143.194.13 (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, for your information, I actually forgot for a moment that ANI existed for occasions such as these. But I recognized that flub and redacted that report, so please, calm down. Parsley Man (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm calm. You are the one running around filing as many administratitive reports as you can instead of engaging in debate. As for ownership, I told you to edit my edits, but not to just delete them en masse when they filled a gaping chasm in the article lead (namely, WHY are people protesting? You cannot have a protest article without giving a statement of why people are protesting in the lead.)63.143.194.13 (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I am engaging in debate too. But your behavior needed to be reported at WP:AN3RR and WP:ANI. Had you followed instructions way earlier and taken the dispute to the talk page in a calm and civil fashion, this may have been avoided. But did you? No. Parsley Man (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@63.143.194.13: reporting Parsley Man for vandalism was absurd, especially if he removed the report. That won't help your cast, at all. (talk page stalker) CrashUnder