Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive948

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

Noticeboard archives


Inez Jasper[edit]

In December, our article about Inez Jasper — a Canadian musician who clears WP:NMUSIC #8 as a two-time Juno Award nominee — was speedy deleted under criterion G5 because it was determined to have been created by a user who was evading a prior editblock. Accordingly, I reposted a new version earlier today, rewriting the whole thing as substantially as possible — quite literally the only things I left the same as the original version were standard Wikipedia templates (i.e. the infobox and the discography list) and unchangeable facts like her name, her birthdate and her album titles themselves. I rewrote and reorganized every last bit of the substance that could possibly be changed, and added several pieces of new information and new sourcing that weren't present in the original version at all, so that the only similarities left were the unavoidable things like not giving her albums imaginary alternate-timeline titles — yet even that version was speedied within minutes as a "paraphrase" of the original article.

The issue is that the substance of what there is to say about her is going to be the same as the original article regardless of how one does or doesn't phrase those facts — so if even completely rewriting every last word of the article's content (aside from the unavoidable matches on details like her name and the album titles), is still "paraphrasing" the original article, then there's literally no way left that any article about her could be recreated at all. I did write the new article differently enough from the first version that it should not be deleted as a "paraphrase" just because of some unavoidable similarities of structure — I can't make up a whole new set of alternative facts about her career or her notability claim, but rather the only thing I can actually do is write about the same facts in different words than the first version, and I did that.

Accordingly, my question is what recourse do I have to get the article reinstated? How much more different do I have to make it than I already did before it can finally be kept without being perennially redeleted as still not different enough? Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Bearcat, I've restored it. Nice work. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Primefac, I was going to, but you beat me to it. I would say that this regarding proxying matters too from WP:PROXYING: "...unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." I think that's the case here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I say if any experienced editor wants to work on G5 that could credibly be an article, give them a heads up on the backlash they might face, and then restore it. --NeilN talk to me 00:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


Although I find the trans_title field useful for non-English references, user Vensatry vehemently opposes it and I don't understand why. I have tried everything to convince him about it's usefulness but he won't listen. Ditto with archiveurl and archivedate. In Vijay filmography (currently a FLC), many sources are in Tamil (a non-universal language), and the trans_title fields in them were removed on his suggestion. Was he right to suggest so? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Two things: 1) You'll need to notify the other user of this discussion and 2) this is really a content dispute, and not in the scope of this board. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 15:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Probably a discussion for elsewhere, but I always feel a bit nervous when I use trans_title (which I do), as it feels a bit like original research. I can see a user being very hesitant to do a translation, if English isn't their first language. Official translators are never supposed to translate except to their first language. Nfitz (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
This discussion may be closed as I realised ANI isn't the right place to discuss such matters. But the intention of this was to list his questionable actions and see if they were justified. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
You need to 'question' the user directly on their talk page before calling their behaviour as 'questionable'. Vensatry (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

IP rangeblock for Suicide of Tyler Clementi[edit]

Resolved for now. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2017 (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.

A very persistent IP hopper keeps posting bigoted and offensive material at Suicide of Tyler Clementi and its talk page. Most recent example: [1], which by the way should probably be rev-deled. All the edits are like that one.

A few days ago Joe Decker semi-protected the page, which certainly helps, but as the diff above shows, the IP just moves to the talk page, and seems quite determined to keep this up indefinitely. It's probably a bad idea to semi the talk page too, so I'd like to recommend a rangeblock. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I've handled the revision deletion, I'll leave the rangeblock to someone who knows more about such things since I don t have access to the rangeblock calculator at the moment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Blade. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Has WP:CRD been met? If I was suicidal, I wouldn't want to be coming across those old edits in the revision summary. Nfitz (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you are quite right. It would really be best to revdel all the edits to the page by the IP. I see that the most recent one was revdeled a few minutes ago, but there are older ones too. There is also this edit to a user page of an editor who reverted one of those edits: [2], and there may be others. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I've cleaned out a couple more revisions too, including the one right above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
IPs have been range blocked for 36 hours. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the help. I suspect that this person will be persistent enough that the problem will resume sometime after 36 hours. If so, I'll come back and let you all know. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I was going to close this, but am leaving it open in case the problem recurs before the bot archives the thread. Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Problem resumes[edit]

And it's a good thing that you did. Just as soon as the 36 hours were over, the problem started up again:

Those 3 edits have been reverted, but I would recommend that they be rev-deled. And that individual IP has been blocked for 24 hours. But unless this ANI thread is going to become a perennial, I really think that we are going to need a long-term rangeblock. Clearly, this is not going to go away without us making it go away. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Tryptofish, you're going to have to ping the admins who helped before, to get some action. Otherwise I don't think they are noticing this. Softlavender (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, the edits were rev-deled just a few minutes after I made the post (and I certainly hope that some admins are monitoring this noticeboard, whether or not they are the same ones as before). I also see that another admin extended the block of this individual IP to a month, with no talkpage access. They just didn't comment on it here. But, for what it's worth, I'm pinging Oshwah, who did the previous rangeblock, because currently only the single IP is blocked. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Bump" to any admin who knows how to calculate IP rangeblocks. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Still a need for a rangeblock. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there any reason that no admin is responding to this?[edit]

It's been more than three days. It's not the most glamourous thread in the world, but hopefully folks didn't sign up for adminship for glamour. Softlavender (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: The problem is the range of all the IPs given above is a /14 block which is huge. Smaller rangeblocks were done (indicated above). Has there been further recent disruption? --NeilN talk to me 05:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not certain what you mean by "smaller" -- do you mean shorter? Oshwah range-blocked the listed range for 36 hours previously. I will let Tryptofish relate whether any extension of the rangeblock is necessary at this time. I just wanted the thread to resolve itself rather than sit here indefinitely (or until bot-archived without comment). Softlavender (talk)
If Oshwah blocked a /14 range I would be very, very surprised :-) --NeilN talk to me 05:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the largest range block allowed by mediawiki is a /16. WJBscribe (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
It looks like it was a /17 and a /19. The problem here is that trying to solve this with rangeblocks would require large scale, long term blocks of shared IPs (Looks like T-Mobile), which is really something we try to avoid. Sometimes there isn't a clean technical solution, and the best response is to monitor, revert, and request short term blocks or protection when necessary. Monty845 05:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Monty845 is correct. I applied a very short rangeblock to those ranges despite the fact that I try to avoid doing so in general. I felt that this was the best way to stop the behavior at the time. Monty845 is also right in that, yes, we do try to avoid blocking wide ranges and that we only block for a short time if we have to do so. Is this disruption still currently ongoing? Sorry for the delayed response here; I've been busy with real life and have only had a chance to catch up here now :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Neil, Monty, and Oshwah for the explanations. (Please understand that I know nothing about how rangeblocks work.) I think that all that anyone needed was for someone to have said what you said, and the thread could have been closed and archived at that time. It was kind of strange to just hear crickets. But I'm happy to defer to what you have said. Things have indeed been quiet from the disruptive user for a few days, but I suspect that the problems will eventually resume. When that happens, I'll be back, of course. It's fine with me to close this thread now. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC) Added Oshwah. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
For reference, I keep a basic guide to range blocks in my userspace which may help explain the problem with the size of the range that would be affected: User:WJBscribe/Range blocks. WJBscribe (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2017 (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.

Odd IP behavior[edit] (talk · contribs)

Their last several edits have been adding one to three blank characters and then immediately removing from a handful of articles, within a minute. These are all whitespace edits so not vandalizing anything, but this is really really odd. I dunno if they are trying to game the system or something, or something more malicious. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please,check with blocked (talk · contribs). Same modus operandi and same server location. PauloMSimoes (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Looking at Tropic Thunder this has been going on with various IP addresses for over a month. Other than burying something in the history, I can't think of any reason, disruptive or not, that someone would want to do this. Monty845 01:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
If its a bury attempt, should we slap on a month on SEMI? I think it could be some little kid fooling around.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 01:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
It's probably not a kid fooling around, given that they've now used three different IPs and edited at least four different wikis. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • IP was in on it as well. Ajraddatz has blocked the reported IP for cross-wiki vandalism. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Here's another one, Widr, you blocked the 200 IP. Do you have any light to shed on this weirdness? Drmies (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Globally blocked both of the above-mentioned ones as well. I came across this guy after a report on m:SRG - I assume it's someone who knows a bit about how wikis work, and how we can't rollback such "vandalism". It's probably just designed to be a time-waste for us. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It's been going on for months, if not longer. They were reported at WP:AN for a while – for example, this thread. Same behavior, same geolocation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    • OK, so block on sight it is. Tirritating, but a dripping faucet is worse. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Yep, that white-space testing fellow from Brazil, has been doing this disruption (to mostly the same articles) for several months, with many IPs at his/her fingertips. No doubt getting a cheap thrill out of it. Certaintly a case of WP:NOTHERE. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Would writing an edit filter rule to stop these sorts of edits be appropriate? -- The Anome (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure, please! Drmies (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Can only admins write edit filters? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@L3X1: No, you can request the edit filter permission from the Edit Filter Noticeboard, but you'll need to show solid evidence you know how to write filters, such as a track record in programming regular expressions and understanding the MediaWiki API. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I definitely don't want to excuse the IP's behaviour, especially if they're as unwilling to discuss the issue as they appear to be, but I do want to point out that there may be an innocent and non-disruptive rationale behind the edits even if it's wrongheaded. I recall, several years ago, seeing a similar pattern of edits from a different user who's definitely not connected to this (he later registered a real account and he's Canadian) — after asking him about it, I was able to determine that for some reason he had it in his head that Wikipedia articles inherently had to be edited at the top of the next hour before edits made within the previous hour would actually get committed to the page history — so because he had that obviously wrong notion in his head, he was adding blank spaces and then removing them again simply to ensure that his work over the past hour wouldn't simply disappear. So I assured him that what he was worried about wasn't actually a thing, and he stopped. Again, without an explanation of why this user's doing it we can't read his mind, but I just wanted to raise this example as proof that there may be a good faith reason why somebody thinks this is a productive thing to do. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    I would generally agree with assuming good faith as far as possible, but the cross-wiki nature of the edits, as well as the IP hopping, would seem to rule this out. Plus, there are the occasional bits of explicit vandalism involved too - at least a couple of page blanks and content replaces with random characters. All of this, plus the timeframe involved (at least months), leads me away from an assumption of good faith here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by rolling IP editor, most recently[edit]

An IP editor has been disrupting Lordship of Biscay for months using IPs in the 85.84.118.* and 83.213.*.* ranges, but over the past few days has turned it Up to eleven. Actions include:

3RR violation (disguised by shifting IP) [6] [7] [8] [9]

unfounded accusations of sock puppetry (I am accused of being either User:Maragm or User:Asqueladd, though the editor can't seem to decide which): [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] (Talk page of irrelevant user)

unfounded accusation of editing for pay: [16]

violation of WP:NPA [17] ("scoundrel")

violation of AGF (or NPA if you view it that way) [18] ("playing dirty") [19] (same in Spanish)

and just general incoherent harassment: [20] (and in other diffs already given)

Prior IP used by the same editor (duck) has been subject to a block for behavior on this and another page just three days ago, but they shifted IPs and made another edit (admittedly, a productive one) within the period of the block. [21] (24 hr block) [22] (edit w/in 24 hr)

(I have made a separate request for an Oversight action regarding the same IP that I will not detail here.)

I have tried to get the editor to discuss content rather than editors, to no avail: [23] [24]

The general disruption at Talk:Lordship of Biscay alone is making a shambles out of attempts at discussion, while the knee-jerk reversions at Lordship of Biscay without coherent explanation (or with incoherent/irrelevant edit summaries in a different language) are preventing page improvement. This editor seems to have gone off the rails. (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you please give examples of the same person editing from 85.84.118.XX ? I'm not finding any such edits. The range can be blocked, as all the edits from it in the last few months seem to be from the same individual, or at least they're certainly disruptive, compare [25]. I've blocked the range for 2 weeks., have you considered creating an account? If you did, Lordship of Biscay‎ and perhaps also its talkpage could conveniently be semiprotected, but as it is, I hesitate to shut you out of the article. Bishonen | talk 15:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
[26] by on 27 Feb is a reversion (unexplained) of the same content as today's [27] by Indeed, the edit history of solely consists of the same pages and in some cases same edits as as User:, who is clearly the same as the current IP. (by, by, by; [28][29][30][31][32][33] by &, restoring block of edts [34] made by & Looks like a web-footed waterfowl to me, but YMMV.
I realize my preference not to use an account at this time makes it harder to address the situation, but it is my preference nonetheless. (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I understand. The 85.84.XX IPs quack, yes, but you've only given me two of them, and That happens to be a tiny range, I don't see much point in blocking it, both because it probably actually needs to be larger, and because only edited for a quarter of an hour on 27 February — I'm not kidding, see [35] — and only for a few hours on 14 December 2016. So it's kind of stale; all the recent disruption has come from the now-blocked range. At least as far as I can see from your information. Feel free to provide me with more 85.84.XX IPs if you should come across them. Bishonen | talk 17:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC).
  • Note to the OP: The standard (and sometimes the only) solution to repeated IP-hopping disruption to a single article is to request temporary semi-protection of the article at WP:RFPP, which would prevent IPs from editing the article. Of course, you would not be able to edit it either, which is an excellent reason for you to register an account, if indeed you are an enthusiastic editor. Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: Another IP,, has just turned up and vandalized both Lordship of Biscay and its talkpage. I was glad to see it, as it made it much easier to block the second relevant range, :-) We can only hope those two rangeblocks will hold the individual. If not, I think I'd better semi despite the disadvantages. Bishonen | talk 17:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
  • Update II: It has turned out my rangeblocks are still insufficient. I've had to semi both article (one month) and talk (two weeks). Bishonen | talk 14:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC).


Inlinetext (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Inlinetext has been a disruptive user, in which they have accused me and other editors of being paid editors or sock-puppets, made personal attacks against me, and has edit warred with another user. This isn't the first time they have been on ANI.

Edit warring
a long span of diffs
more reverts
COI accusations
long span of diffs again
on someone else's talk page
Personal attacks
on her userpage
on a talkpage
reverts it back
JJBers 15:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Still investigating this. See the lengthy Q&A on my talk page for mote detail (part of the original discussion and related AN3 report). El_C 15:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the lengthy hosting of the investigation, El C. I'm not sure it needs to be carried out over several forums (i.e., here, and on your TP, and on the TPs of the two editors, etc.). In any case, my comments are: (1) Inlinetext needs to stop immediately with the personal attacks and insults (including calling someone a schoolchild), or they may be blocked from editing. (2) Inlinetext, do not edit war over a COI tag; if you suspect that there was COI editing, report the matter to WP:COIN rather than making that unilateral judgment yourself. (3) Thank you also to El_C for full-protecting the main article in question until that content dispute is resolved. Softlavender (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • More comments: Inlinetext, please stop accusations of sockpuppetry. Either file a case at WP:SPI if you have evidence, or don't. I'd also like to link the ANI filing against Inlinetext from three weeks ago: [36]. It mentions the massive deletions Inlinetext made from Swami Nithyananda, which are indeed alarming; the article previously looked like this [37] and after Inlinetext's very selective gutting it looked like this: [38] (and still does, with some added attacks), which appears to violate WP:BLP and is a borderline WP:ATTACKPAGE. — Softlavender (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
BLPCRIME probably does not extend to the regulatory issues in Conrad's case. The only issue here is creation of a highly flattering article by Vipul's pyramid network of paid editors on Parker Conrad at exactly the time he was under attack for regulatory breaches. This is why the regulatory COI notices are necessary to be conspicuously embedded to caution readers, and Vipul has admitted he didn't do them. Inlinetext (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME is a Wikipedia policy, and it applies to all BLPs. Moreover, you need to address the points I made on the talk page of that article, which has been full-protected because of the edit-warring. If desired, I can re-post my comments here. COI notices of declared paid editing are placed on talk-pages, not on the articles themselves, as I mentioned in my pinged notice to you on that article's talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I concur. And note that my questions regarding BLP were left unanswered by Inlinetext. El_C 22:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I told you I am busy in real life. If the community wants to hurriedly sweep this under the carpet, fine. I reiterate that Vipul stood to make at least $600,000 (conservatively) from those out-bound links based on 'value' of those links. Another Indian paid editor 'Wifione' got away for many years under these same processes and by the community not following the ToU. 22:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inlinetext (talkcontribs)
  • Inlinetext, if you continue to make these hysterical and grossly unfounded accusations, even in the face of evidence to the contrary and requests to stop, you will receive sanctions in the form of a block or topic ban. Please stick to the issues at hand here on this thread and heed what people are saying to you. Softlavender (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Hey inlinetext, I'm pretty busy in real life too! Still been trying to answer all your questions (at cost to my day job and weekend relaxation). Here's a suggestion to reduce stress for everybody: don't make ridiculous accusations and don't drag third parties unnecessarily into debates.Vipul (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Since Parker Conrad is only a symptom of a much larger problem for conflicted editing, I shall see how my editing priorites (and time) lies 'wrt' reporting this episode to WMF. I am greatly upset that this community openly condones / tolerates co-ordinated and abusive editing by packs of paid editors. Volunteer (unpaid) editors correcting errors obviously feel harassed and highly unwelcome here. This of course is a ToU issue. Inlinetext (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is that BLPCRIME only covers "crimes" which can result in conviction. Regulatory contraventions like licencing may not be directly classified as crimes. There are probably under State regulators (who are not criminal judges). Inlinetext (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
"I am greatly upset that this community openly condones / tolerates co-ordinated and abusive editing by packs of paid editors." There is no evidence of anything of the sort happening on that article. Vipul has explained that below. Softlavender (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Many editors have tried to reverse Inlinetext's edits in Swami Nithyananda, to which his response is: re-undo and source long outdated and controversial news articles (which he also used to defiled the current page). Generally un-approachable in talks pages. Seems to be WP:GAME. (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Anybody reading the talk page of Swami Nithyananda will realise this is a gross untruth. Also the content on the article was not inserted by me and I have carefully aligned it to reflect what the sources say. And, I didn't find or insert those souurces either. Inlinetext (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I should, however, note being especially curious about inlinetext's Question no.7 regarding the possibility of: "personally stand[ing] to receive between US$600,000 to US$900,000 for out-bound links [Vipul's] team inserted into Wikipedia articles which generated those 6 million+ page views." Following the money may be prudent, too. El_C 16:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion the WP:COIN regulars need to be made aware of that entire investigation and interrogation. Pinging @Brianhe, Smartse, Doc James, and JzG: (and they can ping whoever I left out). Softlavender (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Above my pay grade. I think this needs to go to the foundation. I can't see them being happy with someone operating a pyramid scheme based on paid editing! Guy (Help!) 17:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Can't get into it right now but brought the the matter to light at COIN (permlink). - Brianhe (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Wow, a pyramid scheme on Wikipedia, that isn't a article. Well, that's nice. —JJBers 18:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I concur with 'Guy'. The curious facts of this case need to go to the foundation and only to the foundation. It actually appears a case of a pyramid scheme based on paid editing to deliberately compromise the quality of the encyclopedia for personal profit and which thereby endangers the stability of WMF's computer servers. Inlinetext (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The Parker Conrad content being reverted was not added by me or people I paid -- the main connection with me is that the ~2-year old original version of the page was created by somebody whom I subsequently paid for it. In other words, any connection with my paid editing enterprise is tangential; the people involved in the dispute aren't connected with me, and I don't even know who they are. The fact that the conversation was so easily manipulated away from a discussion of the subject at hand (inlinetext's revert patterns) to my paid editing project is sad. I'm happy to answer questions about my paid editing in an appropriate forum (public or private), but I don't appreciate how a discussion about a very different topic (namely, inlinetext's behavior) has forgotten its original purpose so easily and quickly.Vipul (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Vipul, can you identify which of your paid editors made any edits to that article or its talkpage? And also post that information on that article's talkpage (since the issue is brought up there)? That way, we could separate the issues and determine how to proceed. (Right now the article is fully locked because of the edit-warring, and cannot be edited.) Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Simfish (Alex K. Chen) created the original version of the page. His final edit to the page (based on which I paid him for it) is this. My payment to him is recorded here (it's the very bottom row of the table) and here. As you can see, the version as he created at the time was fairly small and just barely more than a stub, and most of the material under contention was added in later edits.Vipul (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance, Vipul. Could you please also copy all of this (both paragraphs of explanation) to the article's talk page, adding it to the bottom of the thread about paid editing? Also note the date and year of Simfish's last edit. Softlavender (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Concerning 'JJbers', this ANI was only filed after I pointed out to her that she had insulted me as follows "@Inlinetext: I understand that you may be mad," [link]. The user ought to have used a neutral word like 'upset'. As Sitush has pointed out to the user, with Sitush twice telling him/her in exasperation to fuck off, this user is interjecting themselves into controversies and areas where they are incompetent and unwanted. It strikes me as very curious that this school student is so interested in rape / murder and homosexual assaults of Catholic priests on schoolboys, and edit wars to extraordinary length with me over such topics. I view such behaviour as a ToU issue and not a community issue. Is this an enclyclopedia or a Reddit ? If so, why has 'JJBers' not hauled Sitush to ANI for saying fuck off twice to him/her? I am not up to date on what has happened here in the last few years but standards, civility and basic courtesy seem to have gone down tremendously .Inlinetext (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Inlinetext, you are continuing to make personal attacks there. Personal attacks are what you are being reported for, and I have already warned you: You need to stop immediately with the personal attacks and insults, or you may be blocked from editing. Stop calling the editor a schoolchild, stop objecting to their use of American English ("mad", which merely means "angry"), stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS about their interests, stop using cursewords (quoted or your own). Softlavender (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I must object here. I wonder how you presume/assume that every English speaking editor here knows that "mad" equates to "angry" or that I speak US English ? Did the filer not that know/consider that "mad" means "mentally ill/ insane" to most (other) English speakers. And imputing instanity to such other editor is definitely a personal attack. I can think of at least 10 other perfectly civil synonyms for "angry" which are probably also used in the US. Inlinetext (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
You obviously knew exactly what it meant [39], as does any adult native speaker of English. El C, I think this time-sink has gone on long enough, and the community should not be forced to waste any more time on this editor. Softlavender (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
When she says "mad," unless there's some kind of indication to the contrary, you should intuitively assume that it means angry rather than insane. So none of that anymore. And certainly none of these edit summaries. Take, then, this as a first and only warning about personal attacks and insinuations. El_C 01:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, Inlinetext. It's all getting to be a bit much. El_C 23:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I think if the editor does not calm down and start collaborating, there is a strong case to be made for CIR ... as in a CIR block. Softlavender (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I am disengaging now. to cool off Inlinetext (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────:I would like to clarify a few things, Inlinetext:
1. I'm a male, not a female.
2.The only reason I joined the AFD was because of a ANI started on that page.
3. I joined the Parker Conrad because of your contributions, not some off-wiki thing.
4. Insulting that fact that I'm younger than you, isn't really useful, and uncivil.
JJBers 02:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyways, I completely forgot about this diff, which's edit summary is basically cursing, in a quote forum.—JJBers 00:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I was unable to respond to anything, I was out taking photos of Norwich, Connecticut, which I will upload sooner or later.—JJBers 00:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I shall henceforth be responding only on the COIN thread or my user talk page. I am staying off "content" until the outstanding issues are not resolved. If I observe any urgent content issues, I will use talk pages or DR to get some other editor to resolve them. I would appreciate JrHeller1 and JJBers not communicating with me unless it is unavoidable. Regarding I am greatly upset that this community openly condones / tolerates co-ordinated and abusive editing by packs of paid editors., this aspect is now very well clarified on the COIN thread in the context of Vipul's group and was not specific to Parker Conrad. Inlinetext (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


I think we should just issue out a final warning to Inlinetext and end this. Any thoughts? —JJBers 17:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. See this example. I have ignored your behaviour but when several senior editors of long standing have commented this and this and this, this on your impatience/behavior, perhaps its time to back away ? "we" ? are you an Admin ? Inlinetext (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Editor 'JJBers' ignores BLP / BLPCRIME and shows battleground mentality. When I deleted scandalous material inserted by the user with a clear edit summary, see this, it was restored with a frivolous edit summary. The (unpublished) source cited does not explicitly say that Reverend Charles Carr was a priest of this church's parish (it says he was then a priest in our Lady of Fatima in Wilton), nor does it explicitly say that Carr was "found guilty" in the "case" it only says he was referred to State protection authorities. Neither does the print version. Inlinetext (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Request is it possible to get a interaction ban for this filer preventing him from interjecting himself in my edits / discussion threads and from posting on my talk page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inlinetext (talkcontribs) 20:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • JJBers, Inlinetext was already given a final warning above this WP:POINTy and self-involved new section you opened. If you keep pursuing them and harassing them and talking about them, you will be blocked from editing.

    An interaction ban is not necessary here. What is necessary is for you both to stop tracking and commenting on each other. If evidence of tracking the other editor's edits recurs, either of you may be blocked from editing. Please go forth and edit elsewhere along you own interests. Softlavender (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

    • El C, JJBers is clearly continuing to follow Inlinetext around, both with his main account JJBers [40] and his alternate account JJBers Public [41], the latest locus being WP:COIN. Could you please put some meat into this and give him a final warning to desist? Softlavender (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done. El_C 18:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible rangeblock[edit]

Hi. After talking to admin GiantSnowman he suggested that I should go to ANI and request a rangeblock (diff). A dynamic IP starting at 2a02:c7f:5405:1300 has been disruptive on articles related to Tranmere Rovers and reverted multiple times by multiple editors. For example look at history of Ritchie Sutton where the IP has been reverted by multiple editors. The articles involved are about 20, so they are to many for semi-protection if it can be solved with a rangeblock. Regarding to length of a block it would have to b be at least one week so the editor notices the block as he only updates after his team has played a match.Qed237 (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

A /64 range block shouldn't hit any other users. However, for me, reverting an edit is not an indication of anything. In this edit they've matched the number of appearances and goals documented by soccerbase. Can you explain this or provide evidenced instances of vandalism? -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: Bottom of infobox states Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of 00:00, 1 May 2016., so it is a factually incorrect statement to add appearances and goals after that. Many editors have been reverting these kind of edits nowadays and in many of the article there are hidden notes that the dates must be updated so readers know when infobox was last updated. Regular editors has been blocked for repeatedly failing to do this, so the IP should to. I have also notified the editor about this on many of their dynamic IP talkpages (like for example here). Qed237 (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. 1 May 2016, that's like a year ago, so we are using information that's well out of date? If their only offence is not updating the update date, it's no block from me. I checked a few articles and couldn't see any hidden notes. Perhaps getting the correct information in the article, and then writing a big hidden note near the current stats will help. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: There has been talks about an editnotice for these kind of articles, as notes unfortunately are often missed. Is that a bit much? Qed237 (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, the infobox for the Tranmere players are currently correct. The number of appearances and goals matches the dates at the bottom of the infobox. Qed237 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I hope you'll take my point that the information is still out of date. My opinion is that editors are bombarded with so many notices that edit notices rarely have any effect. A hidden note in capital letters - when placed in a relevant spot - is usually the most prominent notice available, IMO. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
There are a number of editors (and, indeed, admin) who imo overreact when an editor in GF updates the infobox but omits to update the date parameter on footballer articles. Reversions, vandalism warnings, final warnings for unsourced content, threats of blocks, you name it. Personally, I prefer to correct and move on. I wish more people would do the same. Gricehead (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Gricehead - they're clearly trying to help, not being disruptive at all, and this is the worst kind of WP:BITE. If the content is correct but doesn't match the date, why don't you just change the date to match and leave an explanatory note instead of a scary vandalism warning? ansh666 22:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Gricehead and Ansh666: Trust me people are tired of fixing the same bullshit from editors over and over again, especially when it happens from the same editor who has already been told about it multiple times. After you have given them one, two, three or even four chances (correcting and notifying) and they still continue, there is no other way than to start warning. It is disruptive. Qed237 (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Qed237: I'm still thinking on this, but whilst I'm thinking I thought I'd mention that I like the comment panels you've included in the infoboxes of the players in question. It would be interesting to see if they work - Tranmere have a game tonight, I believe. I put something much lower key in Matt Derbyshire after a spate of Europa League appearances being added. It wasn't that successful, but also wasn't as obvious as yours. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: The note seems to have worked on some articles, but far from all of them (diff). Qed237 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: More misses (diff and (diff). Qed237 (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I hear your pain, but I am generally encouraged by the improvements. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Harassment Issue.[edit]

Situation seems to be under control, and the proper procedures followed. Nothing more for ANI to do. Primefac (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2017 (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.

Hello, I would like to know how I could move forward with a formal harassment complaint about a specific editor? My profile page outlines the parameters of my current position as Wikipedian-in-Residence for ETCL ( and INKE ( When I started with Wikipedia, I was overzealous and edited far too much too quickly and MrOllie took issue with these edits. He was correct in doing so at that time, because they were not properly balanced. I have re-assessed my approach and decided on working through various pages related to digital humanities topics and have provided further readings that are helpful for Wikipedia readers. I included *some* INKE-related articles and also included articles found through Google Scholar that are not *in any way* related to INKE. Yet MrOllie went through and reverted all of these changes without having either read the articles that I posted, or even researched them at all, and even reverted changes on the Digital Humanities Summer Institute Page, which is part of the ETCL and INKE at UVic. I would like to push these edits to another editor, as the condescending tone of the aforementioned editor has become an issue of harassment. Thenewpulp (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) You should try discussing your point of view with MrOllie on their talk page - I see no comment from you there.
(2) If and when you do discuss it, and cannot reach a meeting of the minds, and bring the complaint here, please follow the directions at the top of the page and notify MrOllie that you have started a discussion on AN/I. (I have done so for you.)
Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, I have rectified the issue and posted a similar comment on MrOllie's page. I will leave this here, hoping that it will not need to be used. Thenewpulp (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2017 (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.


Now resolved, by User:Materialscientist and others -- The Anome (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2017 (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.

Mr.RungsunKlinkaeo (talk · contribs) - appears to be using Wikipedia as a link dump. There's definitely something really peculiar going on with this account. Both user page [now deleted] and user talk page completely full of non Wikipedia-related links. There are also lots of image uploads with no copyright information, and similar text- and link-dumps in the body of the page. None of those I've checked seem to be used anywhere. -- The Anome (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2017 (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.


(non-admin closure)Eruditescholar was indefinitely topic banned from adding ethnicity or ethnicity categories to BLP's by NeilN. The topic ban may be appealed in six months at the administrators' noticeboard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Eruditescholar has a history of adding categories to BLP's without proof. See 2015 and 2016. This bad habit has reappeared here, here, here and here. The editor has been warned about this several times previously and apologized on his talk page while promising to take greater care. Requesting a long block to prevent more damage to BLP's with uncited ethnicity categories.--TM 23:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This User: TM is a disruptive editor especially on Nigerian-Yoruba related articles.

@TM If you know nothing about ethnic groups in Nigeria, you don't have to display your ignorance or attempt to use a system to suppress information for readers. We are all here to make Wikipedia a better source of infomation for readers and you shouldn't hinder it or bear your grudges against another editor.

We've had series of conflicts on this issue over many years and you happen to be the only editor who keeps editing in this manner. Aren't you tired? Eruditescholar (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Namimbia! as EruditeScholar said in the previous ANI's, In the African settings, name actually do mean a lot and it is very very possible to analyse the tribe based on that. And I must add really? Ain't you tired of all this??????? ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It's very obvious and crystal clear that @Namiba: is "gaming the system" he is standing on the polices of Wikipedia and using them as a tool to quell, repress and subdue information. @Eruditescholar: is a Nigerian, and in Nigeria upon announcement of a Name, the tribe / ethnicity of that individual is deduced/known immediately. That is probably the reason Eruditescholar may forget to, at times back up these claims with citations because to be honest In my opinion there really is no need to do so. notwithstanding, I, as well as every other editor on Wikipedia, including Eruditescholar, understands the essence of citations, a review of the works by Eruditescholar shows he does proper referencing and citations, if he occasionally forgets to reference some parts shouldn't he be pardoned? i say simple warning should do and a Block is not the solution and I would suggest that Namiba focuses on things that he is really sure of and let people with in-depth knowledge of Nigeria, like Nigerian Editors focus on Nigerian related articles, as I feel and can observe that there is a form of witch-hunt or grudge from one party to the other. Celestina007 (talk) 05:05, March 2017 (UTC)
The problem is even if, we can accept the occasional mistake, this doesn't explain Eruditescholar reverting without adding references when someone has noticed their mistake. Also there's a difference between an occasional mistake and 4 mistakes in about 4 minutes. And besides reverting, Eruditescholar's response when they make mistakes, as shown here, is to complain about other people not understanding Nigerian ethnic groups rather than to either add sources and apologise for their mistake or demonstrate that they were already in the article. The community has not accepted any proposal to relax our WP:BLPCAT requirements for Nigerian people, or anyone else, based on the ability of random editors to tell their ethnicity from their names. So all that stuff is irrelevant. In BLPs, contentious information whether negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable is supposed to be "quell, repress and subdue"d if it lacks references so it's by definition not "gaming the system" to do so. Nigerian people can focus on Nigerian related articles if they desire, and they do so by finding references and adding referenced information. Not by adding information which they just know to BLPs. Other editors are not required to know a great deal about Nigerian ethnicities to be able to check additions by any party because they can check references if needed (or if the references are not easily accessible, ask for a copy of the reference). The only thing another editor really needs to know when it comes to ethnicities is complete synonyms. Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: you do a make a plausible argument sir, & I very much understand your concerns, in summary what I'm saying is the mistake @Eruditescholar: makes is to a large extent involuntary, as any other Nigerian editor may make the exact mistake, and i am particular to Nigerian editors as this is a peculiar issue to most Nigerian Editors, it may on the surface look easy to resolve, but I assure you it isn't as easy as it seems, as it requires very serious conscious efforts to overcome and I do understand that Wikipedia isn't exempting nor giving Nigeria or Nigerian Editors any special privileges whatsoever, because Wikipedia's policies are flat and as so applies throughout all articles on Wikipedia irrespective of race/color/Nation.
Another reason I worry about this particular case is thus; The Given history of the subject of our discussion and his 'accuser', they seem to have a sour history, and I fear one party may be using this platform to settle scores or "try to get back at the other" so judgement should be carried out carefully and with caution so as to avoid any bad blood or personal feelings getting hurt.
Finally, From my findings sir, there is a "Last chance" policy or perhaps it's called "Final rope" , I do forget what it's called, but I think its a policy used as an alternative to blocking a user, it is said to be a way of giving a user a chance to prove himself/herself worthy, I do believe Eruditescholar deserves this "final rope" I do believe he deserves another chance, rather than be blocked because as stated earlier, any Nigerian editor could have easily made the same mistakes as he.Celestina007 (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Given the editors' persistent warnings and their apparent refusal to accept those warnings (except when faced with the threat of a block as seen in the previous instances this has come to ANI) I feel a block is in order. Otherwise, this behavior will continue and hundreds if not thousands of BLP's will be tagged with an ethnicity category for which there is no actual proof.--TM 12:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I propose that a ban on Eruditescholar adding ethnicity and ethnicity categories to Biographies of Living Persons is in order, considering: ongoing behaviour in spite of previous warnings; refusal to listen; the strong policies in place in protecting BLPs from exactly this sort of unreferenced claims. First Light (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, @First Light: could you kindly read my comments above so you could understand better ? Celestina007 (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I did, and it confirms my thought that a ban on adding such categories is the answer, rather than a complete block as TM is suggesting. I also don't appreciate your badgering an editor who is only trying to support an important policy on BLPs ( accusing him of "gaming the system," "a form of witch-hunt or grudge," "may be using this platform to settle scores or "try to get back at the other"," ) Better to discuss the BLP policy and why you think Eruditescholar is correct in his behaviour, according to policy—rather than making personal accusations against an editor who is trying to uphold and important policy. First Light (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I did not mention Namiba, I was civil & diplomatic enough to use the word "party" hence, I did not technically refer to him.
@First Light: I respect the actions of @Namiba: towards developing a Better Wikipedia and of course I also respect you as an editor and your contributions, as my superiors what you say and do means a lot and exerts much influence
As regards my comments on Namiba "gaming the system", yes, I really do believe so, it doesn't have to be correct, but based on history I have observed, its a postulation I derived which may be right or wrong, also I do strongly believe actions outside of Wikipedia are strongly affecting both editors involved.
I think your suggestion makes more sense it is preferred to blocking the user. Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Celestina007, please place your signature at the end of the last line you write, not on a new line. Helpful hint: if you look at a talk page and your posts are different from everyone else's posts, try to figure out why and how to post like everyone else does. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: okay, thank you so much, Point noted. May i also suggest that you work on your tone as someday you may be addressing an editor who isn't as patient as I am and your current tone may easily be thought as and translated as sarcasm, so henceforth work thoroughly on your tone. And also next time when you are offering an unsolicited "helpful hint" always add a link to the guidelines/ policy page backing up your "helpful hint" because surely every of your "helpful hints" must abide and correlate with a current standing Wikipedia policy or guideline and that way you would really be making a notable and meaningful contribution as providing links would help educate a lot of editors rather than a "helpful" hint. By providing links you would also help in closing up the current and numerous gaps in knowledge.Celestina007 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
You can fix it yourself in addition to nannying the poster. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Baseball Bugs: lool oh yes !! he most definitely can help me with that. Celestina007 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Oluwa2Chainz has joined Eruditescholar in the same pattern of editing as well, see here and here. In one edit summary, the editor reverted my removal of the uncited, unmentioned ethnicity categories because "common sense should tell you she's Yoruba".--TM 23:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I have to confess: I am sick and tired of TM's disruption. In a number of instances, he removed categories that have Yoruba Nigerian ethnicity-related information which he is totally ignorant about, especially when the proof is glaring to me! Even if the proof is not glaring and my editing was wrong, other editors would have corrected it. Many of the biographical articles which he removed ethnic categories from have been in that state for years while other editors edit other areas of these articles in question. Why is he always focusing on the ethnic categorizations? Why is his case always different?? TM really needs to check himself seriously because he is only using my ethnic categorizations as an excuse to get back at me regarding the long-term animosity that has developed between us over the years. It is innapropriate to allow external factors or personal experiences to influence one's editing here. If he has problems to resolve, he shouldn't let it interfere with his editing here! There are many other aspects which need more attention on these biographical articles besides ethnicity. If he is genuinely interested in Nigerian or Yoruba-related articles, then he should improve them in other areas. Wikipedia's rules are mostly general guidelines required for editors to comply and use to provide good information for users. It is wrong to use it to exploit others. Eruditescholar (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@TM: You brought another Nigerian editor User:Oluwa2Chainz to this same ANI discussion? Isn't this a sheer exposure of your ignorance? Please, this has to stop. Enough of all these desperations to fulfill your heart's desire! Eruditescholar (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea why any editor feels to impugned my integrity. I simply want to follow the sensible and universal guidelines regarding BLPs and ethnicity categories. It's not personal and I hope the personal attacks will stop.--TM 00:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, if there is no source in the article attesting to the subject's ethnicity then a category listing that ethnicity should not be added. Period. Anything else is original research and blockable disruptive editing if done repeatedly. We see similar behavior with Indian editors trying to discern caste by surname and that practice is stomped on and will not spread. --NeilN talk to me 00:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

User:NeilN, that was established in both 2015 and 2016 when this same pattern of editing occurred. The question here is what are the consequences? It seems pretty clear from both the edits and comments here that Eruditescholar does not care about Wikipedia policies regarding BLPCAT's.--TM 02:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Namiba: See this. --NeilN talk to me 03:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Darreg is repeating the exact behavior as well, see here and here.--TM 15:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
As a first step, warn these editors about adding unsourced material and make them aware that discretionary sanctions apply to all BLPs. --NeilN talk to me 15:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That's like a spammer asking why I deleted his article when there are plenty more spam articles out there. If an editor's attention comes across an article for whatever reason, they are free to focus on resolving the perceived problems with that article. --NeilN talk to me 16:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I do not want to be dragged into this ANI case, can't even understand why I was pinged. I haven't gone through all the edits of Eruditescholar, but in this case, he was spot on. I saw an article through the watchlist I follow and made edits that I believed were not only appropriate, but also factually correct. The woman in question was born in Yorubaland, had her secondary school in Yorubaland, did her university in Yorubaland, was elected as a legislator in Yorubaland, got married into a royal family in Yorubaland. All these were referenced in the article, yet you continue to remove claims that she's a Yoruba politician, even without having any valid contrary argument. I perceive that as being disrespectful to the Yoruba race. One thing I have discovered about WP is that there is a cabal of editors that once you get into their nest, they will continue to haunt you with your own words till they break you. Namiba, you can edit the article as you deem fit. I do not intend to edit that article anymore. My advice to all editors here is don't allow anything break you!, learn to let go. I will not reply to any comment here anymore. Darreg (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
@Darreg: You may not want to reply but I'm pinging you just so you're aware of this response. The problem you face is that Yoruba people defines Yoruba as an ethnic race. This is different from being a citizen of a country or representing a state. Nigerian categories and Mushin politician categories are fine as those can be derived from sources. But ethnicity, as obvious as it seems to you, also needs a source. --NeilN talk to me 17:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Even before this ANI discussion started about two days ago, I have not been as active on Wikipedia as I used to be because of my busy schedule so I ensure that I check what is going on here at least once a day. I would like to see where this ends. TM likes making false assertions to prove his claim like this:

"It seems pretty clear from both the edits and comments here that Eruditescholar does not care about Wikipedia policies regarding BLPCAT's.--TM"

I care about Wikipedia's policies otherwise, I wouldnt value the importance of citations. Adding reliables sources is important for articles' veracity but when you can't find adequate sources and multiple information from the article can be utilized to reveal further information for readers, what do you do? Is it constructive to suppress the information due to lack of sources or to reveal it because it is valid?

If I never cared about BLP categories, why have other editors not reported me on ANI on my numerous thousands of edits I have made on blps since I joined Wikipedia in 2010? The only reason I have to come to ANI is because of TM. I have edited on several blps of ethnicities outside Nigeria including American and British people and I have not had to deal with an issue like this. I am just amused by the way TM keeps lying on me with ease. He tries to cover up his faults in an attempt to reach his goal of keeping me out of Wikipedia for reasons privy to him.

It would have been better if he keeps editing only on articles he is more knowledgeable about and stay within his comfort zone. He should keep away from editing aspects of articles he is ignorant about. Bringing a third Nigerian editor to this ANI duscussion is even more annoying. In the case of Funmi Tejuosho whose father bears a Yoruba name, has a Yoruba name, was born, raised, educated in Yorubaland and given a leadership role in Yorubaland (one of the few women to be so honoured). What other proof do you need that her ethnicity is Yoruba? Most western editors are probably unaware of the role of names in identifying someone's ethnicity in Nigeria, not mentioning other ethnic determinants. The fact that this ethnic categorization battle has been going on for years means external forces outside of Wikipedia is at play here. Looking at the edit histories of some biographical articles such as Lateef Adegbite, Ilesanmi Adesida, Babatunde Fashola and Mosun Filani some years ago reveals the desperation of the extent he has gone in the past to disrupt Yoruba Nigerian biographical articles. Eruditescholar (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Eruditescholar: I'm surprised an editor with 25,000+ edits so misses the point of our verifiability policy. Articles are not written for readers familiar with the subject or, in this case, what is a "Yoruba name" and what it implies. As WP:V states, "verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Checking does not include hunting down the editor who added the information and quizzing them about Yoruba surnames. It means checking a previously published reliable source. Please answer the question I posed on your talk page. --NeilN talk to me 00:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Eruditescholar is indefinitely topic banned from adding ethnicity or ethnicity categories to BLP's. This topic ban may be appealed in six months at the administrators' noticeboard. [42] --NeilN talk to me 17:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to propose something similar (not restricted to BLPs) actually wrote it around the same time as the above reply but decided to wait and see what else people said first before posting. The discretionary sanctions avoids the need for all that jazz. Hopefully Eruditescholar learns to follow our WP:V requirements even in non BLPs. BTW, Eruditescholar I actually have some sympathy towards the problem, but as you've been told before until and unless you can change our policies, you need to follow them. And despite my sympathies I won't likely support such a change. It's not that I don't understand how obvious certain things may be, but there are reasons we shouldn't do it even if it is the norm in certain places. BTW Celestina007, I think Eruditescholar's responses here proves the point. It's not a simple case of making mistakes but rather that they seem to think they don't have to follow policies because it's better, but WP:IAR most definitely doesn't apply in a case like this and they've been told that time and time again. And yes, they have been given plenty of chances, including a last chance before. Nil Einne (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I support this topic ban. Indiscriminate ethnic/religious categorization based only on guesswork about names rather than reliable sourcing has historically been a big problem here and we need to shut it down. Thanks, NeilN, for handling this. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2017 (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.

Facebook IPs used for vandalism/sockpuppetry[edit]

Problematic IP blocked 1 year. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2017 (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.

A year or two ago (IIRC) a large range of IPv6 IPs belonging to Facebook in Ireland (easily identifiable by having 'face:b00c' as part of the IP), serving as an open proxy for Facebook users who wanted to hide their real IP, was blocked because of being used for massive vandalism, yet today a Facebook IP, Special:Contributions/2A03:2880:3020:AFC8:FACE:B00C:0:8000, showed up, on an article that has been very frequently hit by socks of Najaf ali bhayo, an edit that showed all signs of being Najaf. So could someone check if it's a new range that is being used by Facebook, in addition to the old one, or if the old range block has expired? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Definitely registered to Facebook, seems to have been allocated in 2015 (perhaps?). It also appears that any old ranges assigned to them are still validly theirs (given the number assigned to them) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • We have a whole bunch of them now, check page history of Khowar language, one of the articles being hit (there's more than a dozen different Facebook IPs on that article alone...), so would someone please block the whole darned range? It's an open proxy server! - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
There's some background to the (now expired) previous blocks in the archives. Ping @DMacks and JamesBWatson: who did the previous blocks. There's no non-facebook IP addresses being used in the /32 range. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
There's a bit more here. The sock master who's active now is the exact same one (Najaf ali bhayo) who was active last time, and there's as much reason to block the entire range now, to protect en-WP, as there was last time. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
2A03:2880::/32 reblocked 1 year. DMacks (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Problem solved, so this can be closed now. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:35, 10 March 2017 (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 blocked by NeilN for 12 hours for disruptive editing. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Uanfala is vandalism only account and must be block from editing2A03:2880:3020:AFC7:FACE:B00C:0:8000 (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

IP blocked. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Facebook_IPs_used_for_vandalism.2Fsockpuppetry --NeilN talk to me 06:12, 10 March 2017 (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.

Please delete and create protect this page: Rajkumar Mishra (actor)[edit]

Article deleted by Shirt58 and protected from creation. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2017 (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.

It looks like a create war is about to happen, i don't know where to report this, so i put this here. --DashyGames (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Or just block the user (and account creator), i just realized this option is better. --DashyGames (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh and it looks like he logged out to remove de CSD template, his IP is 2405:204:300c:9f94::24f6:18a0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DashyGames (talkcontribs) 07:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Rajkumar Mishra actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:310E:300E:0:0:4D9:10B1 (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2017 (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.

Help needed with a WP:CIR problem[edit]

Blocked for two weeks Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:36, 10 March 2017 (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 need some help in dealing with User:ColeB34, a wellmeaning and productive editor who has problems with issues like notability, reliability, and verifiability.

They have created so far 155 articles, of which 21 have been deleted or redirected (after AfDs on them closed as delete, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilfred Schoenfeld). Many of the remainder are about characters of limited notability, actor of very limited notability, and episodes of TV series of no notability which should be redirected.

Multiple people have tried to discuss issues with him on his talk page. User:Diannaa discussed issues with copying text within Wikipedia and the required attribution in September 2016, and had to repeat that message only yesterday. User:Nthep, user:Wikishovel and Diannaa discussed the use of non-free images in October 2016, but since then many such images have been contributed and deleted anyway. See User talk:ColeB34#Please don't upload any more screen shots. Still in October, User:EdJohnston explained that IMDb isn't reliable and that more sources are needed.

In late October 2016, I warned them about creating articles on non notable characters, and repeated Diannaas warning against uploading screenshots: User talk:ColeB34#Character articles. Diannaa finally blocked them for one week on 31 October 2016.

In January 2017, User:DrStrauss had two of their articles deleted and informed the editor again about numerous issues (use of IMDb, notability of episodes, ...).

Yesterday, I took another look at their articles and again noticed the creation of articles on non notable episodes and actors, and worse the inclusion of seriously incorrect information in these articles. A good example is Alastair Mackenzie (actor), which mixed some unverifiable information and a small amount of correct information on a non notable child actor with the information about a different person, Alastair Mackenzie. In response to this ProD, ColeB34 removed the unverifiable personal information, but didn't change the incorrect mixup nor added a reliable source[43]. They then repeated the information on my talk page for some reason, and (much worse) proceeded to add all challenged information to The Adventures of Black Beauty[44].

So we have an editor where too many of his articles are on non notable subjects, who routinely uploads fair use images we don't want, who doesn't use reliable sources, and who spreads incorrect information on BLPs to other articles even when the problems have been explicitly pointed out to them. Advice, complaints, threats, and a block spread over the months they have been editing haven't helped one bit. Perhaps some very thorough mentoring might help, perhaps it's time to just conclude that competence is required and that the loss of this editor does more good than harm. Fram (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  • The first article I looked at was wrong, and the second one had the same wrong information in as the first - despite them being about different people. I know Charlie Brooker is a genius, but I suspect even he couldn't persuade a dead actor to take a part in Black Mirror. I have blocked ColeB34 for two weeks, during which time it should be possible to sort out the mess he's created (i.e. PRODs will have time to run through). After that, if he continues with his behaviour, I suspect the next block will be indef. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Fram (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I know Charlie Brooker is a genius, but I suspect even he couldn't persuade a dead actor to take a part in Black Mirror. So, a Black Mirror episode plot, then. --Calton | Talk 10:22, 9 March 2017 (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:Johnpacklambert is indefinitely banned from nominating any articles at WP:AFD to a maximum of ONE article in any given calendar day, determined by UTC. If JPL, wants to nominate a group of articles in one discussion, they must refrain from any further AFDs for the same number of days as the count of articles nominated. This restriction does not apply to nominating articles through WP:CSD or WP:PROD. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:47, 9 March 2017 (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.

Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs), who has a history of nominating articles for deletion without considering WP:BEFORE [45] [46] [47], has recently nominated a large number of sport-related articles in the same vein. The vast majority have been closed as Speedy Keep or Keep or on their way to it, due to the appropriate notability guidelines and/or GNG not being considered. Very basic research is able to prove the fallacy of his claims to players playing in non-notable leagues etc. [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] Requests for the editor to withdraw clearly improper nominations were ignored [60] [61] and attempts to discuss this with him on his talk page have been reverted as "rubbish" [62] [63]. Clearly the editor intends to continue this sort of disruptive behaviour and I would request some sort of warning be placed upon him to cease and desist. Not directly related to the issue of sports bio AFDs, but unfortunately has a track record of deleting any attempt to discuss his editing on his talk page rather than engaging in discussion which makes it difficult to address this without escalating the issue. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  • The user also has a habit of ignoring questions to him in the AFD discussions he's started (or participated in). Recent examples are [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70],