Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive953

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Bbb23[edit]

(non-admin closure) Appears withdrawn. OP may need further assistance, but this is not the venue. ―Mandruss  00:48, 2 May 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.

Men's_rights_movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure what this admin's problem is.

He has been very antagonistic whenever I edit Wikipedia Men's Rights.

Being a new user I am learning to make valid edits and discussing it within Talk: Men's Rights. Recently, Jim1138 undid another user's contribution with "No reliable source" as the reason. Given that the source was from the FBI, I undid his edit and cited what source it was. EvergreenFir then undid mine stating that the post is not neutral citing WP:UNDUE

I then undid said edit, and mentioned to take it to Talk: Men's Rights to discuss

Bbb23 then came in and reverted it once more and stated: " you're very close to being blocked, if not already there " then put me on probation here: Talk:Men's_rights_movement/Article_probation#Notifications

Under said reasons it states: "Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith."

I don't believe I have been disruptive in anyway, I have not launched personal attacks and don't believe I have been uncivil in any way and I don't assume anybody has bad faith.

Ultimately EvergreenFir did indeed discuss the issue with me in Talk: Men's Rights and this is what transpired:

The linked 96 report is referenced in ref 184 in that same section. Synth concerns seem unfounded. Arkon (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
It would have been nice if that was referenced then... if we're gonna use that state, attribute it to the source. "NCFM notes that ..." EvergreenFir (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Now given that I was placed on probation for no reason in my eyes, i decided to post here. Within this page it specifically states:

"When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page."

When I did so, I received this:

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:Bbb23, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I have not posted in or harassed him in any way with the exception of the notification.

Flamous7 (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The whole thing was very very bitey from the start, not a good look. Bbb23 also isn't exactly acting purely in an administrator capacity on that page, so probably best not to be threatening other editors with blocks there. Arkon (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The edit in question (without diffs, it's hard to say, but I think it's about this addition) looks seriously POVish to me. Given that the actual range percentages is given in the same paragraph, adding this vague-but-sinister-sounding bit does nothing but create a false impression of rampant accusations of rape. Considering that I'm apparently not the only one ([1] [2] ) who thought so, I think this was a bad edit that needed to be reverted. I also think it's a good idea to, you know, listen to admins when they try to explain how WP works. Also, regular users throw around threats of being blocked all the time. Since admins are regular users (with a mop), I'm not really worried about a threat of blocking. Hell, I get threatened with a block at least twice a week and I've been doing this for years. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Addendum: This edit supports that whole "POVish edit" hypothesis. I suggest that an editor whose POV informs them that feminist literature is, by definition "biased" and "highly opinionated" might want to steer clear of feminism-related articles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To be a bit fair, that page is historically a notorious shit magnet. However, I agree it was bitey and this was a rare (but heartening) case where some patience and a keen outside eye helped resolve the situation. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
What? Your comments have left me with more questions than anything at this point. Where did Bbb23 "try to explain how WP works", where in that edit are you seeing this "by definition" stuff? Arkon (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I used to patrol the MRM page a LONG time ago and enforce the community sanctions that had been imposed. However, it got to be a thankless task, and I largely let it go and let the experienced editors and the new editors hammer things out. Still, it remained on my watchlist, and occasionally I intervene. It may look like I'm acting in a non-administrative capacity, but actually I'm not. I really have very little opinion on the movement or the rather controversial and tangled issues associated with it. What I try to do is to assist in enforcing consensus. In this instance, it looked to me like Flamous7, who is a very new editor, had an agenda and was edit-warring against consensus, so I reverted. The edit summary was a bit aggressive, but that was because I mistakenly thought I had alread notified Flamous7 of the sanctions. I apologize for that part. When I realized I hadn't, I did so. Just like with arbitration sanctions, it's an alert and implies no wrongdoing. It says so in the notice. As for Mlpearc's revert on my Talk page, I understood why they did it because Flamous7 hadn't yet started a thread at ANI. However, it wasn't necessary. OTOH, Mlpearc's only warning about harassment was over the top. Flamous7 had done nothing to deserve even a mild harassment warning based on their conduct toward me. I think that's all I have to say other than I'm glad things were resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
If I would have an Agenda it would have to be to put more legitimate/valid information onto that wiki. This is my starting point, but it is not and will not be the only wiki I contribute to. As you already know, given the formatting, referencing it takes a lot of time to contribute to Wikipedia correctly. As a newcomer I appreciate everybody's patience and guidance and will not give up in making sure I learn the correct/proper way to contribute to wikipedia. Flamous7 (talk) 00:41, 2 May 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.

Quinton Feldberg bot editing to bully people[edit]

Resolved: IP editor blocked by Drmies. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I made a detailed edit summary of the reason but giving no kind of attempt to talk in response Quinton Feldberg (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) just bullies with an edit bot constantly either ignoring or pretending to not notice (because of bias) the talking in the edit summary

Instantly deleting edits, doesn't even talk just bot edits even when someone's talking and clearly not just a vandal, it's because of mindlessly authoritarian bullies like this I stopped using an account years ago --2.121.244.204 (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

From what I've noticed is that you have kept making red links by adding brackets in front of and behind various page links. There's no need to add them before and after names. Sakuura Cartelet Talk 01:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, what with the triple brackets, IP? --NeilN talk to me 01:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The complaint is of course nonsense--as for the triple parentheses, most of the people the IP graced with those parentheses are in fact Jewish, which is why I am blocking them pronto. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, that was quick! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Drmies. I had the same thought but the first couple of people I checked had no mention of them being Jewish and we usually see parentheses instead of brackets. --NeilN talk to me 01:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
These were triple parentheses. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
You know, it's 2017. We have free schools available everywhere, and access to the greatest encyclopedia ever--but we can't beat stupid. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
You can if you have a stick. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
A stick or a hammer? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
True. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Duh. Goes off to clean glasses. --NeilN talk to me 01:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

User:The1337gamer ignores my discussions and humiliates me[edit]

Unlikely to result in any action. Feel free to come to me if you need assistance with specific disputes or situations. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 2 May 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.

Hi there, I would like to report User:The1337gamer. I have had various edit disagreements with him, but ultimately, I agree with edits because he's more experienced with Wikipedia then I am. However, that should not excuse his rude behaviour towards me in which he's intentionally ignored a discussion that I started with him regarding his rudeness with me. For example, he interrupted a discussion by assuming that I have "A tendency to not bother reading instructions", without understanding the full context of my post. He's also insulted me personally whilst I was in the process of modifying the Template:Bandai Namco hardware template. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC) −

Welp, I can't help but notice that I don't see that you notified them of this discussion. Dlohcierekim 16:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Also the lack of diffs backing your statement up... --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Iftekharahmed96: I have notified The1337gamer for you but without diffs showing the problem it is unlikely any anything will be done. --NeilN talk to me 17:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
This looks like an old dispute, and I'm not seeing anything like what you're describing Iftekharahmed96. The Bandai Namco hardware template dispute goes back to December 2016

with nothing any more recent than that. The only discussion I see between you two also happened on your talk page and it appeared to end amiably enough. I see no evidence of any interaction between you two after that, so unless I'm missing something, it looks like this is an old dispute and it should be closed up as such.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  18:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Will close when OP gets a chance to see/comment in 12 hours or less. L3X1 (distant write) 20:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
This is nothing to do with the dispute itself, rather its this user's tendency to act hostile towards me. I just used that particular dispute as one example of his behaviour. He intentionally ignores me when I want to have a serious conversation with him and that's concerning because Wikipedia is a community driven website. All I ask is that he treats me with respect and respects my point of view. So far, he's treating me like a joke of an editor. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I was not rude, I did not attack you, and I did not make an assumption. I made an accurate observation based on [3], [4], [5] and previous encounters. In fact, this ANI you've opened further bolsters my observation because you did not provide diffs and you did not notify me of the discussion, therefore you did not bother to read or follow the instructions at the top of this page. If you're humiliated by what I said, then maybe you should re-evaluate your own behaviour and editing habits. You are reporting me because you don't like my tone, but have you ever considered how yours is perceived by other editors? Every time you get reverted, you seem to take it as a personal offence and start blindly reverting. Your attitude towards other editors is awful at times. In this diff ([6]) you asked GB fan to stop taking the mick because they rightly reverted you for incorrectly following deletion processes. GB fan then explained to you why your edits were reverted and they directed you to the correct instruction pages to learn how to properly complete your task. GB fan was being helpful and giving you advice and your reply to them was that they had ridiculous bias which isn't at all what they displayed. ([7]) And then, as usual, you run off to get another editor to intervene by presenting them with misleading statements that try to favour your side of the argument. Let's not forget one of your previous attempts to get an uninvolved editor to initiate an edit war with me by telling them that I was making so-called "incorrect" edits ([8]), all while I was trying to resolve the content dispute in a discussion that was already taking place. Even when I told you not to request other editors to edit war with me, you somehow took offence to what I said, completely ignoring your own actions as though they were perfectly fine ([9]). After GB fan opened the RfDs correctly on your behalf and deletion was unanimously opposed, your remark to him just shows off your childish behaviour even more Well, looks like you win, I've pulled everything I can. You played fair and square. ([10]). Rather than trying to understand the other side of an argument or in this case, simply Wikipedia's deletion policy, you treat the dispute as a game that you must win at all costs. Your attitude is terrible and you're not going to get anyone to collaborate with you if it continues like that. Re-read the comments, which you consider to be a serious conversation, that you posted on my talk page ([11], [12]): You open with a with a rhetorical question stating that I am rude. You say that I barged into a discussion as though I did something wrong; I am not prohibited from posting another user's talk page. You take an aggressive tone by demanding that I explain myself. When I don't answer immediately, you threaten to report me. You were trying to bait me into an argument, not a serious conversation. My comment on you not always reading instructions or following deletion processes properly was completely valid and not hostile in any way. I'm not humiliating you, you're doing that yourself. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm humiliating myself? There you go again, that's a personal attack. Running with assumptions as if you know who I am personally. I'm honestly disgusted by your confrontational attitude towards me. The way you present yourself, you sound as though you have a superiority complex over me. I've had differences with other editors, but I've been able to eventually come to an agreement with them. Heck, I'm very collaborative too, and I like to learn from more experienced editors. You're the exception to the rule because you're rude and you like to humiliate me when the opportunity strikes right for you. The quote Well, looks like you win, I've pulled everything I can. You played fair and square. wasn't even an insult. It was me admitting that GBFan was right. I even apologised to him and ensured that I'll take his edits over mines next time. This is what your assumptions (to a discussion that has nothing to do with you, mind you) end up doing. Is it too much to ask that you talk to me with civility and not someone starting a flame war in a YouTube comments section? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Good job not reading almost the entire of my post and trying to badly twist specific parts to paint me in a negative light. Love how you choose to ignore all the evidence I provided of your own uncivil behaviour just so you can write more nonsense about me. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I see no evidence presented that indicates that The1337gamer requires a warning or other admin action. --NeilN talk to me 00:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

So is this a free pass for him to keep personally attacking me? Because all I'm asking is for him to have some empathy and talk to me in a negotiable manner, not an authoritarian manner. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I have not been personally attacking you. We have two disputes in the past. One was a content dispute which was resolved through discussion, even after your attempt to mislead other editors into edit warring with me. The second was a speedy deletion that I opposed. I explained my opposition on your talk page and gave you instructions to carry out the deletion properly. But you continued to blindly restore the CSD until another editor declined it. Pointing out that you don't always read instructions or follow deletion processes properly is not a personal attack, especially when that is what you continue to do. You actually don't seem to realise that I was the editor that prevented you from getting blocked when you were accused of being a sockpuppet ([13]). --The1337gamer (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Look, all I'm asking is that you should consider the way you phrase things before you say them. Something that you may think may mean no harm, may be interpreted negatively by someone else. I appreciate that you were one of the people that supported me when I stated that I wasn't a sockpuppet, but that was at a time when I recently joined the Wikipedia as an active member, and it wasn't exactly the most warmest welcome to be accused of being a recently banned user just because I coincidentally edited the same articles as they did, so I couldn't really identify as to which member was which back then. I'm all for having my mistakes pointed out, and learning from them. Please just don't poke at my personal abilities or inabilities whilst doing so. I've said my piece, hopefully something came out of this. the respective moderators can decide what to do with this discussion from this point forward. Apologies if I've caused any unwanted disruptions to everyone involved in the conversation. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 15:40, 30 April 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.

Havenx23[edit]

STALE
For whatever reason, no admins seemed interested in responding to this report. Given that there's been no action by the account in question for 4 days, I'm closing this as "stale". However, should the issue continue in the future and no further resolution is achieved, consider refiling a notice here at WP:ANI and refer back to this report. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) 19:42, 1 May 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.

Since starting an account in Nov 2016, this user's sole focus has been changing the first appearance of Gambit (comics) and now Wolverine (character). After a discussion at the Comic project talk page, he continued to change against consensus without sources for three days before disappearing. He reappeared in March with the same behavior. I reminded him of the prior discussion on his talk page, and he vanished again for a month. He reappeared recently doing the same thing, and another polite warning from me resulted in a wall-of-text that ended with a declaration that he will not stop until he gets his way. He has since continued to modify the articles. Based on this comment from last September where he uses the word "buying" to explain his point of view, I believe he may be a dealer who is trying to profit from misinformation on Wikipedia. This issue is not limited to User:Havenx23 and has been discussed on other articles as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The user's response to the ANI notification includes a personal attack. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:23, 27 April 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.

Class project at Ancient warfare[edit]

(non-admin closure) Admin in charge on top of it. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:17, 2 May 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.

Several editors making large additions to the article. A bit seems ok but there's a lot of unsourced material, an OR comment about begging the question, and I'm not sure about the total impact on the article. I can't do much on my iPad and we really need to find their teacher. Help would be appreciated. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I had to redact it; I tried, but it was just too much to fix at once, with too many unsourced and undue claims. El_C 08:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Seeing some possible copyvio, too, for the first edit that I let stand (Naval warfare)—someone should look into that as I am signing off. El_C 09:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The instructor for this class is listed as Ieremu and Tokyogirl79 is associated as well.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks both. Editing in a moving car on an iPad is chancy, so I stopped. And of course on my PC or laptop I can highlight and right click to search Google easily for copyvio, not that simple on a tablet. Hopefully we'll hear from the editors associated with this project. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pinging me! I've admittedly been editing predominantly under my WikiEd account more than my main account for the time being, so I missed this initially. I'll message the professor and contact the students over this. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
There's been a good post by Tokyogirl179 under her WikiEd account at User talk:HistoryisKing so hopefully this will be resolved. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 30 April 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:TateMandume[edit]

Resolved: User indefinitely blocked by Nyttend. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Since WP:CCI is all but abandoned, I'd like to point out TateMandume's clear lack of understanding of copyright laws here for a quicker response. Despite a clear warning being given, TateMandume continues to claim copyrighted pictures as their own and uploads them to Wikipedia, as seen by their 15+ pictures deleted due to copyrights. Would an administrator mind looking in to this issue? Thanks. — Chevvin 02:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I've currently gone through the liberty of CSD'ing or fair use-ing the offending pictures still uploaded. However, there appears to be two pictures left (1 2) that I appear to be unable to find online using a quick Google search. — Chevvin 02:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted those two (what are the chances that they're good when nothing else is?) and blocked the user. Thanks for coming here with this information. Nyttend (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I was the person mentioned above who gave that warning. I agree with the block. The user has made no effort to correct their actions nor to communicate with us on these issues. They've just plowed ahead with more problematic image uploads. Of the images they have uploaded that are still remaining; all have either been tagged for deletion via some mechanism or, in one case (File:NamibiaPremierLeagueLogo.jpg), properly tagged and in use. One image is curious though; File:Stadion Kuisebmond.jpeg. This image was uploaded to the German Wikipedia back in 2010; see de:Datei:Stadion Kuisebmond.jpg. The version here is identical, including the metadata. The original source of this image is claimed to be the person who uploaded the image in 2010. Regardless, the image is not in use here. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
TateMandume has been indef'd by admin Nyttend. Slasher405 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

Moves of rejected drafts to mainspace by Janweh64 were discussed at this board in February. While all agreed that such moves are not actually forbidden, the editor was given a good deal of advice by various admins, including this: "You should not move articles into mainspace when you have a COI. You should request review as the template allows for. You absolutely should not move an article back to mainspace after it's been moved back to Draft."; this: "bad idea to move to mainspace yourself, terrible, terrible idea to edit-war back into mainspace" (same editor); this: "it would be much, much better if Janweh64 stopped moving his pages to the mainspace and submitted them for review instead"; and this: "his COI has clouded his judgement". Since then, the editor has:

and also directly edited pages such as Robert C. Hilliard (attorney) and Keck Graduate Institute where he/she has a declared paid relationship.

Question: what form – if any – of discouragement is appropriate when an editor refuses to heed guidelines or listen to advice, and cites IAR as a reason for ignoring them? As far as I'm aware, WP:IAR is about ignoring rules in order to improve the encyclopaedia, not about ignoring rules in order to improve your bank balance. (Note: This is about behaviour not content – I've not examined the merit or otherwise of the articles or edits in question.) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggest sanctioning user, starting with a short block—but will refrain from doing so until they've had a chance to respond. El_C 10:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
<To the invisible voices:> What? IAR! *** Seriously though (and I wasn't joking before), is there anything that can be done to discourage this, short of blocking? Warning clearly doesn't work. What other sanction is there? Move-protecting the pages maybe? El_C 10:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Please read 1, 2, and 3 before rendering judgement. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
"Nuke the whales?—→Gotta nuke sumthin'." I'm glad you're doing good (albeit paid) work, but you've been cautioned before against editing and draft-moving directly. So why not simply heed that advise? Plenty of editors out there willing to assist, I'm sure... El_C 10:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs), who originally rejected the article has since reviewed and patrolled the article: Oncology Care Model.
My reasoning is simple, I do not receive fair treatment in some rare cases. With most AfC rejections, I respect the judgement of the reviewer and simply delete the draft. See: [14], [15], and [16]. I have tried using WP:AFCHELP to no avail. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I suppose when the system is failing you, IAR isn't such a bad alternative. Still, I would hope for better checks on paid editing—editing directly feels intuitively wrong to me. El_C 11:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Do the articles meet notability standards? If they do, clean them up from any other issues. If they don't meet notability standards nominate them for deletion at WP:AFD. If they are deleted then they are deleteable again G4. ~ GB fan 10:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, otherwise moving them back to languish in draft is tantamount to deleting them with no consensus. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • A few things: IAR requires that a rule exist in order to break it. WP:COI is a best practice guideline. It is not policy or a must-be-obeyed rule. COI explicitly does not say people with a COI cannot under any circumstances edit articles they have a COI with, because despite many attempts the community has consistantly failed to make it say that. Janweh is also under no formal editing restriction from doing so, beyond the same 'you shouldnt do that' that already exists in the COI guideline. Given the diffs they have posted in reply above, I dont see a problem. If the argument is 'Janweh has been making articles live they have a COI with that are overly promotional' that would be an issue. If the complaint is solely 'Janweh has been making articles live they have a COI with' you need to demonstrate *why* that is a problem. Or open a discussion at WP:COI in order to amend it to forbid the practice. Good luck with that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Seconded. Endercase (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to dive in - the drafts created by this paid editor should be forced to go through the Articles for Creation process before they become live articles. Why hasn't this been done, or even suggested? Exemplo347 (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It has been, the user says My reasoning is simple, I do not receive fair treatment in some rare cases. With most AfC rejections, I respect the judgement of the reviewer and simply delete the draft. El_C 11:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
That's what I get for diving in. @Janweh64: if you don't feel that an AfC review was fair, you can resubmit the draft with a comment such as "Request that another editor reviews this draft" and it'll happen. AfC reviewers aren't biased, most will just happen to randomly review your article having never read it before. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Since the previous ANI, I have voluntarily and under no clear obligation have started using AfC. See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. But in some cases AfC reviewers fail to recognize a notable subject, perhaps clouded by my COI. Like I have said above with examples I usually accept their judgement. But in some case where I strongly believe the subject is notable, I take action to move the article as is my privilege under WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED. I even invite the reviewer to nominate the article for AfD.
For an example of how my paid editing is beneficial to Wikipedia please read: Draft:Don_Reitz—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
If people don't see that a subject of your article is notable, the onus is on you to prove them wrong. You're a paid editor, you have to abide by WP:PAID and not just take it on yourself to move your drafts to article space. Please work with us, or find another way to make money. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is that WP:PAID only states, "If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship." I follow that policy strictly: See User:Janweh64—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'd suggest actually reading it - including the sentence about editing articles that you have a conflict of interest with. To put it simply, the general consensus is that paid editors have an inherent, non-neutral point of view regarding subjects that they are being paid to edit. Create your drafts, submit them, and then walk away. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Janweh64: Please read WP:PAY (not just WP:PAID). The usual process is through the AfC or edit request process. If you have been through that, and you still think the reviewer was really wrong, you can bring your proposed changes to the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard where the community will review your proposed changes. -Obsidi (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • support 1 week block. COI management has two essential aspects - disclosure and peer review. The 2nd is essential to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia in light of the bias that a COI creates. Moves of articles to main space by creators after they were rejected by peer reviewers is rarely acceptable; it is not acceptable in the case where a COI is present. This is not a case where IAR is inappropriate. Janweh I advised you earlier to behave in ways that are of the highest standards. The community tolerates paid editing, it doesn't love it. The more you do to create a bad reputation (for instance here by ignoring peer review) the harder your role here becomes. It is just self-destructive, as well as harmful to Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Please read: WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. Simply reaching a consensus on whether or not a COI editor has the right to move an article from draft to articlespace is sufficient to prevent further disruption.
A quote from WP:Policies and guidelines which, unlike WP:COI, is a policy and not a guideline: "Be clear. Avoid esoteric or quasi-legal terms and dumbed-down language. Be plain, direct, unambiguous, and specific. Avoid platitudes and generalities. Do not be afraid to tell editors directly that they must or should do something." It is easy:
  • An editor with a COI with a subject may not move a draft article to the mainspace or create a new article on the subject in mainspace.
  • change "are very strongly discouraged from editing" >>>>>>>> "should not edit"
  • "may propose changes" >>>>>>>> "should propose changes"
Otherwise, you are punishing me for declaring my COI religiously when 1000s of others are right now editing with no declaration. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
This path of acting aggressively in order to support your paid editing and then arguing fiercely to defend your aggressiveness is just going to lead to an indefinite block per NOTHERE. None of the volunteers here want to waste time any time at all dealing with this, which is just about you making money. Don't you get that? What little patience people have, you exhaust by doing this. There are some paid editors who disclose what they are doing, and who "get it" and create no drama and they add value to WP. You could have been one of them, perhaps. Not what you are choosing... so be it. Jytdog (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I will step back. Please just give me clear guidelines. And I will abide by them. The previous ANI only offered advice.  —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
You have them already. The way out of this particular hole is just to say "Hey, I get it. I am sorry. I will not move my own paid articles to main space anymore, but will appeal through normal channels if I feel an AfC review was unfair. Again, my apologies for creating drama. It is important to me that I remain in good standing with everybody. " Something like that. but mean it, and do it, and don't do stuff that causes people to drag you here.Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I concur w/ Jytdog. Dlohcierekim 18:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

In light of the new changes/clarification here by Jydog on March 13 to WP:COI, I will not move my own paid articles to main space anymore, but will appeal through normal channels if I feel an AfC review was unfair. My apologies for creating drama, again. It is important to me that I remain in good standing with everybody. I was truly unaware and not informed of these changes to this guideline specifically made after just a mere 20 days from my previous ANI, which was archived unclosed. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Janweh your response promises that this particular problem will end, which is a good thing but the rest of what you write there is argumentative and... horrible. The prior ANI thread from only two months ago was also called "Paid editor moving own drafts to mainspace" and in that thread several editors told you the same thing you have been told here.
In other words, every single editor who commented there and here wasted their time. That is what you just communicated. That you are going to treat WP guidelines and policies like "rulebooks" that you will exploit as hard as you can in order to make money here, and you will ignore community feedback.
That is nothing like what I advised you to write. You can let your comment stand or strike it, but you should be aware of how bad for you, your post was. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: This user is nothing like you appear to portray them in your above statement. "You can let your comment stand or strike it, but you should be aware of how bad for you, your post was." They have declared COI and they are following policy/consensus to the best of their understanding. You have "won" here, I do not understand your apparent hostility nor your apparent failure to AGF. IMO this should have never been brought to AN/I (where it wastes our time) clearly (IMO) just having a discussion on the user's talk page would have sufficed. You are also a good faith editor just trying to protect the encyclopedia from POV pushing paid edits. I agree with your sentiment, just not the methods that have been used and are suggested to be used here. No editor should ever be blamed or even punished for wasting time because they were dragged to AN/I instead the peer doing the dragging is at fault if there is no real problem [wp:broke] that needs to be addressed. Personally I think this AN/I needs closed as all "problems" have been addressed and an agreement has been reached; based on their agreement to this. Endercase (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I took the time to speak off-wiki with Janweh earlier in their paid editing career, when they were editing aggressively to try to get their paid edits into WP, and arguing aggressively that it was OK for them to do that. I explained to them then, that paid editing is just barely tolerated by the en-WP community. I explained that if they want to create a sustainable presence here, they should be rigorous in disclosing and submitting for peer review, and always work peacefully and without drama, and of course generate really high quality content with high quality sourcing. I explained that working this way would increase trust and respect for them in the community, and make their life easier (and to be blunt, more productive and more prosperous with regard to their paid editing). Everybody wins that way. And I explained that the lower the quality of their work, and more aggressive they were in trying to get it into WP, the more their work and behavior would be scrutinized, and the slower and harder everything would get for them, etc.. That the community loses with time wasted on the drama, and they lose (less productive, less money made, and heading toward a NOTHERE indef) if they go down that path.
Now this issue of moving their own paid articles to mainspace has arisen again. The first instance was semi-understandable. That this 2nd thread exists at all is hard to understand, as is the slipping back into the fierce arguing to justify marginal behavior. That this 2nd thread ended with with them making a wikilawyering argument half-justifying that this happened again, is bad for them. It is on the path where they lose.
I do agree that this thread should be closed. I still hope that Janweh has the good sense to strike and make a more clueful statement before that happens, but if they choose to let it stand, so be it. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC) (added a bit w/out redacting Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC))

British Israelism[edit]

This article is under a constant assault from believers of the ideology who can't seem to take "no" for an answer when Doug Weller gives it to them. Would a round of admin warnings or even topic bans be out of the question?

I'm serious, the entire talk page except for the first section is from the last month. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the behavior of specific editors, you need to name them and provide diffs to back up your complaint. Otherwise it is unrealistic to expect admins to do anything. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Even if an admin were moved to page-correct here, we would need to look at the behaviour of specific editors if we hoped for any lasting resolution to the issues. However, a quick perusal of the article and talk page demonstrates the the OP/IP is not being altogether histrionic in claiming that there are major issues there; most of the threads of that talk page demonstrate a whole lot of activity from some inexperienced editors with a limited understanding of Wikipedia sourcing standards, neutrality principles, and the requirements of encyclopedic tone.
That said, I'm not sure if there is a whole lot of behaviour that I would describe as per se WP:Disruptive. I've seen no evidence that the inexperienced editors are doing much that is improper, other than being really, really persistent while also being really, really wrong. Maybe there has been edit warring or other behavioural issues that did not become immediately aware to me as I moved through those threads, but if not, I'm not sure we are at a point yet that requires administrative attention. There's only a small number of editors contributing right now and though I certainly feel for Doug as he attempts to keep this situation in check, if the only obnoxious thing the "believers" are doing at present is being long-winded in advocating for their approach, I'm not sure what is to be done at this point. I think we need more perspective on the issues here before we can consider any course of community action. And even then, RfC might be a better first stop, before ANI. Doug Weller, any additional thoughts? Snow let's rap 04:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Dear IP, the non-specific and WP:DIFF-less nature of your report means that this thread is just going to get ignored. You yourself have never edited either the article or its talk page. If you are merely wanting "admin eyes" on the article, Doug Weller is already monitoring the article, and he's a big boy and can handle things. It's also worth noting that the OP has had an enormous amount of warnings in the seven months he has been editing [17], mainly regarding the Israeli/Judaism subject area, the most recent warnings being yesterday and the day before, so perhaps a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. Softlavender (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Foks, WP:DOLT tells us that a complaint about an article should be taken seriously, even if the complaint includes legal implications (WP:NLT). In the same way, there is no need to pile-on to the IP unless some examination of the issue has occurred. I have been watching British Israelism for a while and a glance at Talk:British Israelism shows it has a massive WP:SPA problem with 426 edits this year, compared with 329 edits in the previous thirteen years. I wanted to help but have been driven off by the blizard and Doug Weller should not suffer alone—obviously he's not there for recreation. Attention to the article and talk page is needed, although how to get that attention is unclear. Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks. The page was also the subject of edits by socks for quite a while - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anglo Pyramidologist/Archive, but that's not a current problem. At times this last week or so I've thought of giving up but some more editors have joined in. It's not just this page, British-Israel-World Federation is being edited by its president, and a move request I've made at Talk:British-Israel-World Federation has had only 2 responses, one from the president (as an IP but making it clear in his edit summary who he is) and the other by the secretary of the Victorian branch who has also been busy creating new articles. The editor this is mainly about is User:Wilfred Brown. Although he uses quotes from policies, guidelines and essays and their acronyms, I'm not convined he understands them. Right now he's looking for a 'neutral' source, one without bias that doesn't take sides. I think he may mean that doesn't mention the anti-Semitism and racism that has been part of the movement and that spawned Christian Identity, which is really hard to avoid by any acdemic studying the subject. He recently commented saying that some of the text is "filling up the article with info about 'Christian Identity' to the point where Christian Identity should get it's own page. .. Oh wait". See also his response to User:Agricolae at Talk:British Israelism#Central tenets redux. On the other hand it has always been a bad article and he's spotted some terrible sources that have been removed. But at the same time he wants to use self-published sources, telling us that the Bible was self-published. I'd better stop now or the malware that crashed my first reply in Chrome might move over to FireFox. Neither Norton nor MalwareBytes have solved it, a mess. I'll go make sure Wilfred Brown knows about this discussion. Doug Weller talk 08:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Just recalled something I'd written in Chrome saying that it would nice see this resolved without sanctions and without other editors giving up in despair. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Look, as the new editor in question, I admit that I'm totally green when it comes to editing Wikipedia, however, I have read many of the policies, and have a much better understanding of how things work now. I like to believe I make valid points on the talk page. Are they numerous? I don't know. I do know the topic itself is large, and 100s of books have been authored by British Israel adherents over the centuries. It's not my intention to promote anything, but having read many of those books over the past 30 years, I do recognize that this article is grossly lacking information on the subject, and is unbalanced towards it's critics. It's a little better now, but has a long way to go. And as I stated, I only want to see a clear version of What British Israelism is, and how the adherents came to those beliefs. Then add all the refs to counter those views. You won't see me deleting any of it unless they violate Wikipedia policies. But endeavoring to get to this point has been a non-stop battle. For a recent example; There's was a section 'Theological claims that assert a racial lineage'. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Israelism&diff=777403948&oldid=777390438 It's nearly incomprehensible, and raises points unrelated to the title. But, it's completely unreferenced. It's been sitting in article since before 2012. I said 'it needs to go' in talk, nothing got changed, so like you say, be bold, so I deleted it with 'WP:V Violation 'All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable'. But it was reverted a short time later by Agricolae, without any references. It took a third party to agree that it needed sources. However if I add a line or topic, and the reference I use isn't considered good enough, it's often deleted within minutes. So completely contentious, unreferenced posts can sit there for a decade, but try to add a well known and understood British Israelism belief, (which is the majority viewpoint on the page, right?) well, be prepared for a battle. One thing I was completely unaware of was that a little sarcasm or suggesting that there's bias gets you dragged here. I'll keep that in mind. Wilfred Brown (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Wilfred Brown: No one dragged you here. You were being discussed by others who didn't name or notify you about this discussion, and I thought it courteous to let you know. I didn't drag you here at all. Yes, I commented on my view of the problem your sarcasm, but I didn't say you said there was bias, the word "bias" was used in the context of the sort of source you wanted, and it's fine to say that there is bias. Doug Weller talk 12:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
(since I have been accused of . . . something?) All I wanted was a little bit of time (by which I meant less than a day) to improve the text that had only been flagged for concern just a few days earlier along with over a dozen other passages - fixing problems does not happen instantanously. So, I reverted a single time, and when I was reversed by a third party that was the end of it, at least for me and I turned by attention to trying to forestall further deletions of newly-flagged material. That this interaction should be turned into a cause célèbre, prime evidence for some grand design to present a biased view of the topic, seems disproportionate. Agricolae (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Why then do you not show the same courtesy to new edits? Wilfred Brown (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I have already explained in much detail on the Talk page both time I reverted or removed new information and I see no good coming from playing this out again here in ANI, where it really isn't relevant. Anyone interested can look at the Talk page and the edit history. I don't anticipate the servers crashing from everyone rushing to see. Agricolae (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
And just to add, an example of how messed up this article is, there isn't even a consensus on the definition of British Israelism itself. I've been collecting a list on the talk page. So far we have 16 different definitions. Wilfred Brown (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
That is not an issue with the article. that is an issue with BIism and the fact it is not a unified movement or organisation. This is one of the issues that I am seeing, edds who want to try and make it seem like BI believes X when different "branches" disagree on it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Johnuniq, where in the world are you getting legal threats in the OP? I've read it several times and as far as I can tell it's just a standard "need eyes/help on this article" post. Softlavender (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry about the confusion—legal threats are not relevant here! When I replied, three editors had commented, each pointing out that the IP had not identified specific issues or editors or diffs. My comment was to say that DOLT tells us to consider a complaint even if it violates NLT, and in the same way it is obvious that the IP is reporting a real problem, even if the report violated the norms of ANI. By the way, the topic of the article is extreme WP:FRINGE. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a serious issue with POV pushing by edds with COI, but (as Dougy points out) at least one of them has also made a few valuable edits.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

High school redirections by Alexander Iskandar[edit]

This editor has unilaterally redirected a large number of high school articles without prior discussion. Now, most of these do have deficiencies in sourcing, and indeed may not be notable, but there appears to have been no real effort to find sources and, at a minimum content should have been merged rather than a straight redirect. Though I could revert these changes that way lies edit warring and I should welcome a broader discussion. I have also notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. Just Chilling (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It's important to pay attention to messages in your talk page, folks! Anyway he should state why he is redirecting them so we can find ways of rectifying the problems. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It looks like his intentions are good, but all the same this is highly disruptive. You can't just go around mass-blanking articles, especially in a unique subject area that is usually included by default. The redirections should probably be undone, and I've warned this user that they're dangerously close to a block. Unfortunately, they don't appear to be a very communicative person, so I'm prepared to block if they don't heed the warning. Swarm 16:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Strange edits by anon[edit]

IP blocked for 24 hours. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 18:09, 3 May 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'm not sure it is vandalism so I thought that I'd report 100.11.70.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) here. Anyway the anon keeps adding making questionable edits to various pages related to the Super Bowl. Not sure a block is warranted. Sakuura Cartelet Talk 21:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:36, 3 May 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.

Spam-blacklist Admin needed[edit]

An Admin familiar with the Spam-blacklist is needed at this page. The link econlib.org was blacklisted as part of an anti-spamming effort. The original lister has gone off of admin status, and the admin who usually handles de-listing requests made comments about the merits of the link and request. Accordingly, s/he feels s/he should not touch the request. The vast majority of comments about the blacklisting have been in favor of de-listing. The particular website is sponsored by a noted and respected think-tank, and it has original material from noted economists, including Nobel Prize Laureates. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

My stalker's latest IP[edit]

IP blocked by NeilN for 48 hours. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) 18:01, 3 May 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.

86.150.50.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Just need someone to block them and revert their edits. Eik Corell (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

arrow Reverted Can't help with the blocking part, though. DId you try AIV? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Blocked for 48 by NeilN. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 15:17, 3 May 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.

203.17.215.22[edit]

Continued vandalism[18] mixed in with many productive edits after multiple blocks and warnings.[19] IP belongs to State Library Of Victoria,[20] probably a computer open to the public. Also see edit filter.[21] --Guy Macon (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much. Only one obviously disruptive edit, and all the hits on the edit filter are pretty stale. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 19:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

School/Range Block Request 169.241.60.*[edit]

Dealt with via a rangeblock. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 3 May 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.

There's been some vandalism coming from 169.241.60.* (see range conribs for diffs) the past two days. This appears to be part of Clark County School District according to the {{Shared IP edu}} on one of the IP's page. Requesting block. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

  •  Done Blocked for 2 weeks. Let's see if it starts again after that. Strange one, because there aren't any contribs in 2017 before yesterday. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Black Kite: I limited the contribution range to just the past two days in that link as that was where I saw the disruption. Here's a range of contribs since the beginning of the year. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah my bad - I read it as all contributions for 2017. Regardless, 95% of the edits are vandalism, so no problem there. Black Kite (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Note that the school district actually has all of 169.241.0.0/16, according to whois, so a /24 may not catch it all. On the other hand, narrowest scope that blocks the currently active vandalism is also fine. Murph9000 (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
A school district with a /16? No wonder we ran out of IPv4 addresses! Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 3 May 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.

Attempted doxxing / Casting aspersions by Auntieruth55[edit]

No odxxing occured nor was attempted. I still can't find the How-To Disrupt Guide, but admins say it is lame, so there. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:05, 3 May 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 Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) has attempted to apparently link me to an off-wiki account in this post to the WP:MILHIST noticeboard (diff) (revision deleted). This was done as part of an on-going dispute on this board and borders on harassment. Shortly before posting to MILHIST, the editor added a comment to the ANI above (ANI/Boomerang proposal: Topic ban for User:Dapi89):

  • I found a reddit page with all kinds of instructions about how to disrupt wikipedia's efforts to provide some coverage of the German military. I have it bookmarked and I could post the page here, but I'm not sure it would be productive. (diff) I note that the editor chose not to post the link here at ANI, but instead did so at MILHIST.

For prior comparative attempts, please see ANI archives:

The user has subsequently removed the link from MILHIST, but not the commentary: There apparently rewards for spiking the project, too. Just saying... but anyone curious about the "reddit link" could retrieve it from the article history. The editor pretty much suggested such on their Talk page, while acknowledging that the link was likely problematic:

  • I was told that it would be like "outing" or harassing someone, so I deleted the link. Sorry. and If you've got the skills, I suppose you could go to the history page.... (diff).

The user has recently posted commentary across multiple noticeboards targeting me. This post to MilHist apparently refers to me (Unilateral deletions and massive changes of FA articles), but I was not notified: It seems to me that one editor wants these articles to go in a specific direction... (diff). On this thread (Unilateral deletions, edits, etc. of Good and Featured Articles), created at the same time & addressed to me, the user commented:

  • This seems like it has one intent: to drive a specific discussion of WWII pilots in the direction you want. (...) The intent is quite clear.

There was no response to my question about any specific objections. I thus consider this discussion to consist of unsubstantiated aspersions, while no dialog has been offered. Since then, the editor has found the time to post multiple times to the MilHist thread and this noticeboard.

The user has previously accused me of conducting a crusade (multiple times) (sample diff), arbitrary editing articles simply because [I] do not like [them] (diff), being disruptive (diff), obstructionist and in defiance of Wikipedia standards ( FLC discussion) and anxious to discredit these previously approved articles! (diff). Please see also: the discussion at NPOVN.

The editor has continued to do same at the ANI thread linked above, referring to my Talk page posts as a barrage of wiki-rules and wikietiquette and wikipolicies which is allegedly a brilliant use of wikipedia's user guidelines to obfuscate the issue (diff). Also at this ANI, after I've requested the editor to substantiate their claims of me being engaged in incessant bickering, the editor responded with:

  • I refer you to your own posts. This demonstrates incessant bickering. (...) Anyone looking at the history of the pages in question can see it. As for degenerating, the name calling -- whoever does it-- needs to stop. (diff). The editor has not been able to substantiate these allegations, but have not retracted that statement.

I'm asking the community to please evaluation this pattern of behaviour. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Had Auntieruth55 not themselves removed the material upon being alerted to its nature, I would indeed immediately block. If Auntieruth55 continues to interact in a negative spirit, it will be difficult to consider that posting accidental, and I will block. This should not be taken to preclude whatever action the community might want to take to deal with more general issues involving that editor or others.
I hope that this discussion and the related ones will be carefully noticed, because after this I do not think anyone involved in these disputes could be considered unaware. Everyone should know that it is considered as very serious misconduct to refer to off-wiki discussions that might even possibly identify another editor; if it rises to the point of harassment, it will almost certainly lead to an indefinite block. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The possible attempted doxxing is not on, and I am glad that auntieruth has removed the material. Anything approaching doxxing must be stamped out. However, the "casting aspersions" idea is just another example of the wikilawyering, pointy behaviour and relentless and TLDR threads by coffman defending his style of editing and complaining about people who don't find it helpful to WP and have told him so. I consider this tendentious behaviour that makes editing unpleasant for other editors, but based on past interactions, I have no hope coffman will stop. I have taken to avoiding most areas being edited by coffman because they are so unpleasant. At some point they have to take some responsibility for the effect that their editing style has on other editors. This complaint (less the doxxing issue) should be ignored. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Wow. I wasn't aware that it was one of the undocumented responsibilities of admins to inform others what to take seriously and what to ignore on this noticeboard. I think most of us are mature and perceptive enough to determine what to ignore ourselves, thanks. (In case it's not clear, it seems highly improper for an admin to pick sides by justifying allegations and then making a further attempt to cast stones.) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that it was one of the undocumented responsibilities of admins to inform others what to take seriously and what to ignore on this noticeboard
So, you don't hang out here very often then? Or are you conflating "should" with "order"? --Calton | Talk 07:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
what most admins would have done was block, especially because this site has been previously linked to in this connection twice, each time from a different editor. I was in fact considering an oversight block. But I almost never block if I can possibly help it; I prefer to give warnings, and I usually word them as advice. I have no desire to judge the behavior of the different editors here--I explicitly said that just above. I think almost any other admin , upon seeing the previous warning ineffective, would have proceeded to block. But I prefer to think the ed in question here may have been unaware of the seriousness, and I give the benefit of the doubt yet again. I'm not an admin because I want to enforce the rules by sanctioning people; I want to enforce the rules by guiding people, and I'm an admin because the ability to use sanctions if necessary can in practice sometimes make the guidance very much more effective. If I do have to block, I will regard it as a failure. DGG ( talk ) 08:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The reported incident, about a page mentioned before and reported by the same person before (surprise) clearly was no doxing at all. During the respective discussion several people had brought forward criticism about the project WPMILHIST; and all Auntieruth55 waid that there apparently exists an exterior discussion about the project, too. He didn´t mention Coffmann in that post or the followup; the only "pattern of behaviour" is that he was part of that discussion again, the repeated disturbance of the project's work and the repated reporting by said user. ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • As an editor involved, I didn't ever see the MILHIST post, just what was on the noticeboard, and am the editor Auntieruth replied to on the talk page. (I never saw the final comment about history) If GELongstreet is right, than there is no doxxing involved. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 13:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The material involved had been oversighted twice in the past. I agree with DGG that the initial removal suggests this was unintentional, but the talk page reply to L3X1 on her talk page is the definition of trying to get around our rules on outing and harassment. Telling a fellow editor how to see material that has been deemed oversightable in the past is not okay. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I've struck part of my statement above based on the replies here. I agree with DGG and Peacemaker that anything approaching doxing by linking off-wiki accounts is not good, but think it was done without malice in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
response from Auntieruth
  • I'm the editor who posted the reddit link and when I was told that it was not a done thing, I immediately removed it. Never heard of "doxing" (still not sure what it is). While doing some online research about the sources involved in the content dispute that underlies the discussion, I discovered an exterior discussion of our ongoing conversation (about military personnel in the Nazi era) with detailed instructions on how to get involved, how to use wiki guidelines against wikipedia, and generally how to disrupt the military history project. The instructions were not just detailed, but outright invitations to confound the project, and contained links to the intro to wiki pages. There was also considerable ridicule of our good faith efforts, some self promotion about a vandal's cross (which I've never heard of), and instructions on how to get involved in sabotaging the project, starting with WWII German Luftwaffe bios. Some editor--I don't know who it was (well, I know the reddit name, but will not mention) --had actually bragged about the disruption that he or she was causing, and named at least 2 wikipedia editors by user name. If this is being done by (an)other wikipedia editor(s), then I wonder if it is violation of WP:NOTHERE because said editor(s) would clearly not be here to build an encyclopedia but to promote an agenda and for self-aggrandizement. Is this something that should be investigated? If so, not by me. It needs someone higher up in the food chain, with higher pay grade, and seriously better internet skills.
  • As for posting instructions from me to another editor on how to find "stuff", that's laughable. You can refer to conversations that are still ongoing in a previous ANI complaint (I cannot find it) that I am basically clueless about how to post differences. Eggishorn actually questioned whether I intended to post the differences I posted, and s/he is right, I'm not sure. When I get it right, it's sheer luck. I should take some lessons from a few people here.
  • As a WPMILHIST coordinator, I'm very willing to help develop guidelines on "reliable sources" for potentially contentious material but I am not willing to do this in the face of a phalanx of editors with an agenda to limit the project's scope and subject matter. auntieruth (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, given that nothing posted in any of the relevant Reddit threads contain personal or identifiable information, I fail to see how this even remotely approaches doxing. I say this as someone who has actually been doxxed, to the point of having harassing material sent to my place of work. Which is to say, let's not pretend this is anything more than it is. Parsecboy (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree—I've just wasted a chunk of my life I'll never get back reading the thread in the Link So Serious It Needed To Be Revdeleted to see what all the fuss was about, and there's not a whiff of outing, doxing etc anywhere that I can see. ‑ Iridescent 15:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Auntieruth55, I accept your explanation that the link was not posted with malicious intent. However, the on-going pattern of casting aspersions still concerns me. For example, could you please point to the phalanx of editors with an agenda?
It seems the only editor that the MilHist coords are concerned about is my person, while anyone who happens to agree is part of a "tag team". Please see the other ANI thread on this board, where one such claims remains unsubstantiated: User:Creuzbourg and User:K.e.coffman Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel &Boomerang proposal: Topic ban for User:Dapi89.
Likewise, the only disruption that has been mentioned before is me again: We need to deal with this. Coffman is disrupting what I thought was a resolved issue, this time at the Featured level diff. Please also indicate how I've attempted to limit the project's scope and subject matter. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised I wasn't notified of this discussion given that it touches on one of my admin actions (revision deleting the edit under discussion here after I was alerted to it by email). I didn't think it was necessary to block or admonish auntieruth given that she'd removed the link as soon as the problems with the edit were brought to her attention. As auntieruth is is by any standards an editor in good standing (elected Military History project coordinator, lead editor of multiple FAs, clear block log, etc) it appeared to me to be an error rather than anything malicious. In retrospect I guess I should have also left a note about this on her talk page. I'd suggest that the editors involved with the underlying dispute here (the representation of Nazi German military people) take a time out, and resume with some kind of centralised discussion rather than having it out article by article given that the current pattern is inflaming things and leading to disagreements among a group of excellent editors. 09:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Who wrote this? An extra tilde was typed. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 14:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC) Nick-D did.
This should be closed, clearly Auntieruth55 did not post the link with any malicious intent and as pointed out above, removed the link herself after being told it was not appropriate. Kierzek (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Moreover, posting a link that contains no personal information is not doxing. Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 3 May 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:PerfectlyIrrational aka User:EthnicKekistan[edit]

(non-admin closure) Nothing bad going on, reiteration of previous concerns, move along. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 11:53, 4 May 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.

Remember PerfectlyIrrational (talk · contribs) from here and here? His sole focus, unsurprisingly, has been on White nationalism topics, ginning up thin articles on non-notable figures and organizations (Colin Robertson (activist), Lana Lokteff, Identity Evropa) and on "riots" before they even happen (2017 Patriots Day Riot, 2017 Auburn Riot.)

Now, he's ginned up another one -- 2017 Pikeville Protests -- and the only thing he seems to have learned is to not begin with "riot". I really really don't think he's here to build an encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It is pretty sad that you recklessly and falsely accuse me of being a white supremacist based on your personal instinct. If you had paid attention, it was simply a misnaming of the subject at hand due to unreliable firsthand news reports, along with the fact that I didn't know how to move the article at the time. The Pikeville rallies are well-documented and reached the top of multiple mainstream news today. Not everyone who edits articles about controversial topics supports the controversial topics within.
I'm assuming this is well-intentioned, but I would of preferred you spoke to me privately instead of publicly accusing me of being a white supremacist. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
...instead of publicly accusing me of being a white supremacist
And I would prefer you not make things up, since I did no such thing. --Calton | Talk 05:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
He's been here two weeks, made 324 edits, 257 of which are in article space, 25 of which have been deleted (mostly articles he's created), and been reverted thirteen times. He's a major contributor to the 2017 Berkeley protests, Brittany Pettibone, Alt-Right and even one of the larger contributors to PewDiePie. Do you have any complaint besides the editor's choice of work area. If no, close immediately. If yes, is it substantially more concerning then; he has a secret agenda to promote white nationalism. Yes, he's doing a tremendous job promoting white nationalist organizations as ... well, white nationalist organizations. Really, the most gauling thing in that edit is that he's used buzzfeed as a source. Which is controversial, been relitigated many times at WP:RSN and at last check was good enough. My opinion; we should not block, ban, or otherwise revoke editing priviliges from any editor for choosing to edit in a controversial topic area just because it's a controversial topic area. If there's a problem with the articles he's creating, knock him off to AfC or TBAN him from creating articles. I don't think there is, as yet, a problem with their article creations. They are a brand new editor. I have limited expectation of competency by week two. Eight articles created with two currently deleted and two redirected is not a great record admittedly. There is, however, nothing that I have seen from the links presented above to say that he's not here to contribute. This is the second time that you have brought a case to AN/I about EK/PI. Note that I'm mighty suspicious of this new editor's intentions was the opening statement you made on the last one; the community decided that concerns over the username were, however, merited. At this point in time, I am not convinced (at all) that this is worth administrator time to intervene in. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Do you have any complaint besides the editor's choice of work area.
Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote instead of making something up. It'll give you a better handle on things. --Calton | Talk 05:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
This is the second time that you have brought a case to AN/I...
So? You yourself admitted -- though you buried the lead and someone else obscured the issue by censoring my original heading -- that my complaint had merit. So the point of whinging about how this is "second time" I've brought this to ANI is what, exactly, other than FUD? --Calton | Talk 05:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Calton, you accuse me of failing to read what you wrote, then proceed to fail to read what I did. Case in point; You yourself admitted ... my complaint had merit. I did no such thing. I said the community decided that it had merit. I personally, and you can find this on the public record, do not think that the RfC/U was merited. Furthermore, the community did not find your filing to be merited, but, held a general concern over the username itself. Your first case at AN/I was to comment about an editors name, then cast an aspersion about their motivation for editing and then ask whether you were being overly sensitive. It was somebody else's idea entirely to go to the RfC/U noticeboard. That something came about from your first complaint, does not entail that your complaint specifically was merited. I don't know what FUD is, I'm guessing that it's Fear, uncertainty and doubt. No idea what relevance that holds.
Secondarily; the sum of your new AN/I filing is IMHO one of two things. Either (almost inconceivable) 1. You're not satisfied with the articles that PI is writing and have concluded therefore that PI is NOTHERE. Or (far more likely) 2. You've noticed a pattern of contributing to white nationalism topics, including creating articles many of which are subpar, and are propping up your unease with a NOTHERE argument. Now, and I repeat myself but with expansion for clarity, [d]o you have any complaint besides the editor's choice of work area, one which is not self-evidently borne out of your unease at their contributing solely to such a topic, but, have not provided satisfactory evidence to suggest that they are a white nationalist, a propagandist, or a NOTHERE editor. Any of which, I would posit, could be rationally argued to be a cause to block. None of which, I do not think, has been demonstrated as yet. If you hold concerns, which I can understand (if you would believe that), then feel free to monitor their contributions. I still think you should leave them alone personally, but, I am in no position to give commands. However, there should not be any action taken without some cause beyond personal "gut feeling". If it isn't clear; I am less concerned about what you "really really think", I care only that you are now twice dragging an editor to a noticeboard for no discernible reason besides your gut instincts hiding behind the veneer of lacklustre content. I am requesting a centilla of evidence that they are genuinely not here to contribute (sub-par articles and a focus on one topic is not evidence of NOTHERE; CIR with regards to article creation maybe but we're not at that juncture yet). I have already advocated that no action be taken and this thread closed. I stand by that recommendation regardless of whether you think my "less than one and a half years" tenure is sufficient to make one as such. Now, if I am grossly mistaken on any of my comments, please tell me what and where and I will endeavour to correct myself. I'm not entirely sure that you care about me doing that, I'll endeavour to do it anyway. I also note Evergreenfir's comment down below about disruption, I'll look for it and if I find anything I'll post it here. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
So, I've gone through their talk page as well as several complete articles where they are editing. Most of the notifications on their talk page are about deletion requests. Two are about RfC/U. A number of notifications are concerns over specific edits (including two false flags) and one, the most pertinent one, is about a recent edit-war over an infobox at 2017 Berkeley protests in which five people were involved. Though only PI hit the 3RR mark and risked a block. Never a good sign for a new editor to have that many notifications on their page so soon. That said, their conduct on article talk pages and generally in the articles I've gone through isn't really disruptive, contrarian and somewhat clueless sure. The edit-warring is the single most pressing issue and even the warnings for vandalism are on closer inspection not an accurate summation of the facts. The "fuck Antifa" edit was bad though, even if deferring to intent. That's all I've found. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Mr rndude: I'm uncertain if you're speaking ironically or not. If PerfectlyIrrational is "doing a tremendous job promoting white nationalist organizations", then he needs to be told to stop, immediately. See WP:PROMOTION and WP:NPOV. If he's only been here two weeks, he probably shouldn't be editing articles in a controversial topic area, let alone creating them: see WP:CIR. We may be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but that doesn;t mean that just anyone should edit in certain areas unless they have a good deal of experience under their belts, have good judgement, and aren't here to promote an agenda. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of the article Lana Lokteff, could an admin please check to see if the current article is substantially like the one that was speedy deleted in March? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
My apologies BMK, I forgot that sarcasm and irony dont translate well in text. Yes, I was being ironic. I dont see an agenda or promotionalism in their contributions. Thus, I have zero reason to think the accusation of nothere to be merited. Hope thats shorter and clearer. I disagree with your assessment of where one should edit. There are different learning curves for different topics, to be sure. However judgement and experience are completely separate. Much experience does not mean good judgement and of course vice versa little experience does not equate to poor judgement. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
And that's why I said that one should have experience, good judgment, and no agenda to edit in sensitive areas. It appears to me that PerfectlyIrrational is missing at least the first two of those, and possibly the third as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The odor of footwear is strong, to be blunt. But without an SPI, not much to do there. This user, however, had been informed of the WP:ARBAP2 discretionary sanctions. Given their disruptive actions in that topic, remedies like a topic ban under your discretionary sanctions seem appropriate. If this user is truly "here", they'll edit constructively in other areas. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Who or what is EthnicKekistan? User or otherwise. It sounds familiar, but I can't place the reference. El_C 06:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: was a recent user but the name is in reference to the 4chan /pol/ meme kek. The name was on RFCN recently too. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The phrase 'kek' originated on World of Warcraft, where Alliance and Horde characters were not allowed to communicate, and thus their text was shifted. lol became kek when viewed from the other party. --Tarage (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@El C: See recent discussion at RFC/U. Funcrunch (talk) 15:27, 30 April 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.

BoybandPH naming and Hollyckuhno[edit]

(non-admin closure) Closed per request. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 16:12, 4 May 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.

Good day admins and fellow Wikipedians! I am really condemning what Hollyckuhno (talk · contribs), where she didn't respect the ruling regarding the requested move I've made (Boyband PH -> BoybandPH *per common name* *also 1, 2, 3) last January 19, 2017. Pinging the supporters of the move, SMcCandlish (talk · contribs), Tavix (talk · contribs), and Fylbecatulous (talk · contribs) and the admin who closed the request, BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs). She reverted the article's name back to "Boyband PH" without raising another request move and I think, she needed to be sanctioned for disrespecting the ruling. I just don't get her logic on her naming standards/guidelines reason (same goes to [i Want TV], where the website itself and Google news search result stated it is "iWant TV". Well, if we would apply her naming standards/guidelines reason, then iPhone, iPad, and iPod would be like "I Phone", "I Pad", and "I Pod". ~PogingJuan 18:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, Alternativity (talk · contribs) has also complained to her talk page regarding the move from KidZania Manila to Kidzania Manila where it must be "KidZania". ~PogingJuan 18:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
And not to mention the user's "apparent" conflict of interest. Most of her contributions are/were affiliated to ABS-CBN (even majority stakes of KidZania Manila is owned by ABS-CBN; articles stated on my complain are ABS-CBN-related; majority of the user's photographs displayed on its page are ABS-CBN-related; the user made a userbox about being a proud ABS-CBN viewer and Kapamilya (ABS-CBN brand name)), but I think it does not matter to my complain. ~PogingJuan 18:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I see that after more than six months, PogingJuan still hasn't managed to wrap his head around the difference between an interest in and/or bias toward a subject and a "conflict of interest". Editing articles related to a company does not mean one is employed by that company or otherwise affiliated with it in any way.
That said, the move of BoybandPH back to the pre-RM title was out-of-line and should be reverted. The KidZania Manila move appears to be a little greyer -- it was not a counter-consensus policy violation, but apparently a good-faith misunderstnding our naming conventions, if even that.
Hollyckuhno should be warned about the inappropriateness of this behaviour, PogingJuan should be trouted for not warning them (instead jumping straight to ANI) and making a bunch of weird off-topic remarks about COI and such, and the projection of Hollyckuhno's counter-consensus behaviour onto another user clearly not guilty of the same in another thread further up this page.
And this thread should be closed, of course.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 08:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, Hijiri88 (talk · contribs), I never said that that user has a bias on those articles related with ABS-CBN or its corporate, because as far as I can see, there were no neutrality issues on how that user edited/contributed. That's also why I said that that does not matter. Also, I've put there the word "apparent". Just like when majority of U.S. voters expected an "apparent" Hilary win (also due to her lead in popular vote), but it was Trump who won the elections. Back to the topic, although I haven't warned Hollyckuhno on her talk page, two of the users have complained/queried already about her actions (one about BoybandPH by ValarianB (talk · contribs); one about KidZania Manila by Alternativity (talk · contribs)). The user didn't reply on both complaints so why should I post another complaint on her talk page where I think she will not reply, just like he/she did. Well, the following list is regarding the renaming of BoybandPH.
Thread to be closed? Not now, I think. Hollyckuhno needs to defend (him/her)self first. Then, if good-faith misunderstanding, as you said, was the cause of pattern of making controversial title changes without RM or discussion, then the user must be trouted for him/her to understand and respect policies on making an RM or discussion and common name. Also, it is given that my requested move was a contested technical request. ~PogingJuan 15:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@PogingJuan: Please stop accusing other users of COI just because they edit some article on some topic, and may have some kind of bias. That is not the definition of "conflict of interest, and as noted above this is a recurring problem for you. In this case, you appear to be speculating about the real-world employment situation of the user based solely on his/her having edit two articles related to the company. This is a potential violation of WP:OUT. Please stop it immediately. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: The moment I have strikethrough my previous comment about apparent COI does mean that I have reversed my statement. It meant I have stopped my speculation. My opposition for the thread to be closed that s/he must defend is regarding the move and only the move of the BoybandPH article. Now, please also stop bolding words (except if voting) as it may also be a potential violation/interpretation (for a lighter term) of WP:SHOUT. ~PogingJuan 05:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't seen that you had stricken the comment in question. I saw your ping of me, in which you defended your repeated misuse of the phrase in question. If you seriously acknowledge that you were wrong, then it's not enough to game the system by striking your comment to shut me up, while continuing to engage in the problematic behaviour. You have to acknowledge that you were wrong and stop the problematic behaviour. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Please note that my question on the KidZania Manila page was intended to be a friendly query, not a complaint. Not that I'm arguing for either side here. I'm only saying I am not familiar enough with the overall behavior of the editor in question to be able to form an informed opinion, and the characterization of my comment as a "complaint" is somewhat inaccurate. - Alternativity (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Noted. ~PogingJuan
Ah yes I had forgotten about posting on the talk page. @Hollyckuhno: can you explain the BoybandPH move? ValarianB (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem at all if the majority of the users wanted the name to be reverted to BoybandPH. I did not know that there was a consensus about the naming of that particular article. I should have checked it first before requesting for uncontroversial technical move to admins. I have no intention of violating any guidelines. Maybe I misunderstood the guideline about naming articles. That's all I can say about this issue. Thank you. Hollyckuhno (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Noted. After Hollyckuhno have admitted about misunderstanding guidelines, I am now requesting this ANI thread to be closed, with Boyband PH be moved back to BoybandPH as per the consensus of the contested RM. ~PogingJuan

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.

Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia Page[edit]

(non-admin closure) Cleared up by Beyond My Ken on user talk page. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 16:10, 4 May 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.

Hi,

My name is Sabrina Alvarez and I’m encountering a problem with another Wikipedia user.

I was asked to update/edit Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia page per her request. I am her assistant and I have access to her most recent information on her bio. All I did was go in and make a few corrections such as actual dates and information on her page, as well as updating her image. I’ve pasted below the conversation with the other user(s), As well as a note from Maria Elena Salinas herself, who is requesting this issue gets resolved, and if there is anybody we can contact that will take care of this situation.

I would like to resolve this matter as soon as possible, please advise. If it's true that I can't make any edits myself, who can I give the factual, relevant, and up-to-date information on Maria Elena Salinas so that her Wikipedia page is relevant and up-to-date, as well as with an appropriate picture for her profile?

Thank you, Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)



Hello, this is Maria Elena Salinas. I asked my assistant to go into Wikipedia to update because not only are there things that are outdated but also inaccurate. I don't feel comfortable with someone going in there and deciding how to describe me or my career that doesn't know me and doesn't have the correct information. To start I don't want that picture up there, also when you google me a Wikipedia message describes me as Mexican journalist and I am an American Journalist, not Mexican. Please let me know who I need to contact to have this issue taken care of.

Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia Page[edit source] Hi Vanamonde93,

I was instructed to edit/update Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia page per her request. I am her personal visitant and most of the information was outdated including the image used (which she did not like). I really need to go in and make those edits that you deleted, therefore please do not delete again or revert any of the edits done. You can of course go in and include information (if factual) but do not delete.

Based on the information I shared with you above, I will be going back into her Wikipedia page and once again add all the information that was deleted.

If you have any further questions let me know.

Thank you, Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see the reply below. Vanamonde (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia Page[edit source] Hello, this is Maria Elena Salinas. I asked my assistant to go into Wikipedia to update because not only are there things that are outdated but also innacurate. I don't feel comfortable with someone going in there and deciding how to describe me or my career that doesn't know me and doesn't have the correct information. To start I don't want that picture up there, also when you google me a Wikepedia message describes me as Mexican journalist and I am an American Journalist, not Mexican. Please let me know who I need to contact to have this issue taken care of. Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sabrinaalvarez: Greetings. Please keep in mind that you have a conflict of interest with respect to this page, and so you need to exercise great care with your editing, because Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Your biography is covered by the policy on biographies of living people. Therefore, any information in it is supposed to be supported by reliable sources, which is how we verify the truth of any facts on Wikipedia. If there are facts which are incorrect and/or not supported by reliable sources in the article about you, the best way for you to go about addressing this is to post to the talk page of the article with your concerns. If this does not work, or if your concerns are very serious, then the best thing to do would be to contact WP:OTRS, which is meant to help with situations like this. Finally, please remember that according to our policy on a neutral point of view, your article needs to be written based on how you are described in reliable sources, not how you choose to describe yourself. At the moment, this article fails these policies quite badly: we shall have to see what to do about that. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Well if that is the case, who can I speak with so that they can make the appropriate edits to Maria Elena's Wikipedia page, as well as updating her profile picture? Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)== Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia Page ==

Well if that is the case, who can I speak with so that they can make the appropriate edits to Maria Elena's Wikipedia page, as well as updating her profile picture?

Maria Elena Salinas Wikipedia Page[edit source] Well if that is the case, who can I speak with so that they can make the appropriate edits to Maria Elena's Wikipedia page, as well as updating her profile picture? Sabrinaalvarez (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrinaalvarez (talkcontribs) ───────────────────────── @Sabrinaalvarez: Maria Elena Salinas and her assistant need to understand that the article about her is not theirs to shape as they see fit, and that they both have a serious conflict of interest with regard to it. In addition, the assistant, who presumably is paid, is probably in violation of our policies on paid editing. As pointed out, saying that "[we] have access to her most recent information" is not helpful, since such information needs to be verifiable.

Here's what they probably should do: since they are in possession of the most up-to-date information, that puts them in a position to find that information in reliable sources. They they should put the information, and the source, on the talk page of the article, and another editor will look it over, check the source, and add it to the article if they think. They should not edit the page directly, because of their COI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little worried there's a bit of a CIR issue here, because I have given them the same advice; twice, in fact: and they do not seem to have gotten it, and have posted the same questions here instead. They have also coped the entire conversation from my talk, including three postings of the same question; and despite all this, have failed to go the talk page of this article. I have neither the time nor inclination to mentor this user, so if somebody does, that would be helpful. Vanamonde (talk) 09:26, 3 May 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.

Think we may have a legal issue with Run (video game)[edit]

Resolved: No legal threat has been directed at the Wikimedia Foundation. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Player 03: has flagged what appears to be a legal threat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Run (video game). Under the circumstances, should we speedily blank? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

  • The actual legal discussion was made off-wiki, so I don't know that linking to it would fall under WP:LEGAL, especially since the person linking it is the one being threatened, not the threat-maker. ♠PMC(talk) 21:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) This is none of our business. It's not our job to collate external claims in some kind of dispute and use them to cast doubt on the release given us by the editor when he/she clicked SAVE. Anyway, even if the writer's not paid the client/employer may get the copyright anyway, depending on the exact facts and jurisdiction.
No one's made a threat to us so there's nothing to do here. EEng 21:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing to do here?! You mean we've closed down the wikiwatersports park and boardwalk? And the arcade? And the theater? Awww, man. Now I'm going to have to spend all my time editing...And cracking corny jokes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
"The article that I have attached has not been paid for, and is my Intellectual Property". As soon as you post it here, it isn't. Their argument is irrelevant to enwiki, and perhaps just shows some of the issues attached to paid editing. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
According to that section of the Terms of Use, "When you submit text to which you hold the copyright, you agree to license it" (emphasis added). Bridget Pringle claims to be the copyright holder, and she was not the person who uploaded the article. I'm no copyright lawyer, but if her claim holds up, I believe that means the person who agreed to the Terms of Use didn't have the legal authority to make that agreement.
That said, I agree with EEng that no one's made a legal threat to Wikipedia, so it's a moot point. Player 03 (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, who has the rights may well depend on the details of the applicable law, including Australia's. If this was all in the United States, then the question would be whether there was a work-made-for-hire agreement; under such an agreement, the copyright would belong to the party hiring the writer from the moment the work was created; it does not get transferred upon payment. As such, even if the writer got stiffed, that does not mean that the copyright was not in the employer's hands.... to the best of my not-a-lawyer understanding. What I'm really trying to show is that the question is not so simple. Having said that, if this person has put forth a reasonable claim that the post infringes, it behooves Wikipedia to remove it for now. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I've reached the end of my not-a-lawyer knowledge, so I'll stop discussing what-ifs.
The page is on its way to being deleted for notability, but if it's kept, I'll follow up with Ms. Pringle. Player 03 (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree with NatGertler. If they are the person who created the article, then they agreed to license Wikipedia to use it when they hit save. If they submitted the article to their would-be employer and that person created it here against their wishes, then ownership of the IP will depend on the terms of their work agreement. Wikipedia is not a party to that agreement, but if they have a credible claim to copyright they should considering contacting OTRS. Or they can wait a couple of days, as the article seems likely to fail its AfD. Sympathy for their predicament should be tempered by their apparent status as an undisclosed paid editor. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Is she an undisclosed paid editor? If they didn't post this article, then they are not an "editor" at all in this case. And if we don't know what their username is, we don't know if their other edits (if any) disclose their paid status. In the absence of evidence, there is no reason to assume malfeasance. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • For the record, Black Kite (because I'm in the mood to be a knowitall tonight) even after an editor clicks SAVE they retain copyright on the text. But please, can we close this now? Notability is the only issue, and that's being handled elsewhere. EEng 04:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I had a series of discussion about this issue a while back... here, here, here (long and involved). TL;DR: User:Moonriddengirl, who is the one ask, said basically it is about "agency". It doesn't matter who owns the copyright (and it does indeed technically remain with ExxonMobile Inc. or whomever, just as technically I retain copyright to my contributions here) the material is irrevocably licensed under CC-by-SA, and the person hitting "Save" automatically has "agency" to release it under this license (providing they're doing it at the copyright holder's general behest). The copyright holder does not have to agree or understand that they can't revoke the license. Telling their employee "write this in Wikipedia" is enough to give that employee "agency" to commit to the license. Or something like that. It gets much more involved but that's the nickel summary.

"Not getting paid" could affect the copyright (I guess) but not the license. The CC-bs-SA license is irrevocable when made, if valid at the moment made, I've been told. Herostratus (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

  • As an external contractor (completely unrelated to wikipedia), almost all of my contracts while classed as work-for-hire also specify that in the event I am not paid, I retain all right