Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive963

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Violation?[edit]

(non-admin closure) Violator blocked 1 week. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:24, 25 August 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.

Is this a violation of this? Tiderolls 16:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

That it is. EEng 16:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and there have been several recent crystal-clear warnings that this type of post is a violation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Blocked one week by User:Ivanvector. — fortunavelut luna 16:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
If not for Only in death's warning I might have let this go, we do allow some leeway for users to adjust to their community-imposed restrictions. But with the plainly-worded warning there's really no way that I can see that they weren't aware that the edit would definitely be in violation of the restriction. This wasn't just testing the limits of the ban, it was repeating almost exactly the sort of edit (objecting to "de-Americanizing" a biography) which led to the ban discussion in the first place. Easy and necessary block, in my opinion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks to everyone offering an opinion. My take was that the warnings were adequately explicit; I was a bit stunned to see Light show's post. I thought it was possible I was overlooking something obvious. Regards, Tiderolls 17:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 24 August 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.

96.240.96.130[edit]

(non-admin closure) Vandal blocked 1 month. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:21, 25 August 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.

Someone please block this IP 96.240.96.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), please, at least for a week or two (I would bring it to AIV but this is a rush ask); all of their edits since the 4th have been vandalism/unsourced television show and network vandalism, and they're using the 'multiple edits to muddle quick rollbacks' strategy to get their edits to stick. Just discovered tonight and how they haven't gotten well past their last warning is incredible to me. Nate (chatter) 02:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You can use Twinkle or rollback to easily revert multiple edits. There haven't been any edits in the past few hours, so I posted a level 3 warning. I'll try to remember to keep an eye on the IP's edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Due to recent disruptive editing and the long-term nature of the issue, I've blocked this IP address for 1 month using {{anonblock}}. Mz7 (talk) 01:37, 24 August 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.

NLT[edit]

Reported user has been blocked for making legal threats. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:55, 25 August 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.

Resolved

There's plenty of disruption around this for anyone who wants to dig into it, but this is a pretty clear cut legal threat. So...just seems easier that way. TimothyJosephWood 17:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This editor seems to have a history of making legal threats. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Blocked. Enough editors have tried to help and all they do is offer to settle things in court. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:28, 24 August 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:Zbunyip[edit]

User:Zbunyip has been involved in many disruptive edits on Adelaide Park Lands (and subsequesntly other pages), and despite attempts to engage them on User talk:Zbunyip, they have refused to respond, and seem to have engaged in edit warring. Their modus operandi is to replace content that was supported by reliable references with their own biased POV that is contrary to the statements that were there, and they do NOT supply any reliable references to support their own opposite POV. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zbunyip for the trail of havoc they are creating. I would revert their edits, but don't want to be involved in, (or classified as being involved in), an edit war. The inaccuracies and falsehoods they have been introducing worry me. Advice please. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that many of this editor's edits are problematic. I haven't looked at them all in detail, but they have included removal of sourced material with refs and addition of unsourced material without refs. In particular I've had to revert his changes to Tjilbruke (see diff 1) because he substituted the name of one Aboriginal tribe with another, and another editor has just reverted his multiple edits to Kaurna (see diff 2). He has also edited articles on other Aboriginal tribes, the Ngarrindjeri (see diff 3, and the Ramindjeri (also since deleted by another user, see diff 4).
This is a controversial subject area, requiring specialised knowledge of the sources, and I'm not particularly well qualified to go into this very deeply - but it seems that this editor is taking a partisan stance (particularly in the Kaurna/Ramindjeri dispute), and his edits in these particular articles (as well as in other areas), which commenced on 19 August 2017, are similar to those previously made by Mifren, who last edited on 1 August 2017. Bahudhara (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Zbunyip's writing style doesn't remind me of Mifren, despite the thematic similarity of their contributions - I'd be quite surprised if this is a case of sockpuppetry. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, now having seen more of his work, I agree, the styles are very different. And he is now reaching out for advice at the Teahouse and user talkpages. Bahudhara (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Lankandude2017[edit]

Lankandude2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has recently been adding original research (in the form of material from sources that don't discuss the article subject) to articles including British Sri Lankan Tamil. This has been discussed at Talk:British Sri Lankan Tamil (and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#British Sri Lankan Tamil article), but Lankandude2017 continues to revert to his preferred version of the article, against talk page consensus. This has already resulted in one block for editing warring, and Lankandude2017 has now returned from that block to continue the same behaviour. He has also been warned for accusing me of racism, as discussed at User talk:Lankandude2017#Accusation of racism and in the couple of sections below. I have generally been trying not to rise to this, as it is clear that several other editors are keeping an eye on the situation, but he has now signed a talk page post as me, which is getting pretty disruptive. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

And now Lankandude is adding frivolous/malicious AIV reports against Cordless Larry and myself. --bonadea contributions talk 15:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

...and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bonadea (with no evidence of sockpuppetry). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
SPI page deleted (by me), and Lankandude blocked for a week (by Alex Shih). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
With respect to the admins already handling this, this is hallmark behaviour of a particular sockmaster, and I've re-blocked accordingly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

user:Emanuel argento disruptive edits[edit]

I'm not an expert of such situations, I don't know exactly where to ask for help and I apologize in advance if this is not the proper place to make such requests.

The new user Emanuel argento is erasing content on the article Cassata. Nothing big, honestly, but the problem is that he neither gives substantial arguments, nor shows sources. He didn't stop even when I provided sources to motivate the presence of such content on that page. He kept reverting my fixes, erased the source I provided and trolled me on the edit summary. Today I found out that he erased again my edit. At this point I don't know what to do.

While he has never been warned before on en.wikipedia, I found out that he accumulated a lot of controversy on it.wikipedia, as you can see here (Sorry for linking a page in a foreign language, but I think it is necessary. A web translator may help). Despite admins and reviewers gave him several suggestions, advice and warnings to stop his damaging edits, he ignored everything and everyone. He was also notified with a "block" warning (sorry, I don't know how this procedure is called on en.wikipedia) after several admins and reviewers reverted 84 edits by him in 2 weeks (!). In his defense, he said he doesn't want to be annoyed by admins, because what he say is true (!!). That's how collaborative this guy is.

In the last weeks I reverted other odd edits by him (for example, here), so I suppose he is probably giving the same, bad contribution here on en.wikipedia. That's why I showed you his it.wikipedia talk page.

I just read on the guidelines that, in order to solve an edit war (like the one occured on the cassata article), a discussion on an article's talk page is the best thing to do, but in this specific case I think it'd be useless (he doesn't listen to admins, why should he listen a regular user? He's completely uncollaborative).

On a side note, I noticed he seldom motivates his edits, but when he do, he writes in Italian. I think this is not completely fair and constructive to the community (I can understand him since I'm Italian, but what about other non Italian-speaking editors?).

That said, I kindly ask an admin to keep an eye on Emanuel argento's diruptive behavior on en.wikipedia. I also ask that some admin could help me to restore all the legit content he erased from the cassata article.

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simostar (talkcontribs) 17:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Proposing topic ban for all articles related to Palermitan cakes or confections, narrowly construdeled. EEng 19:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC) Seriously, can we change the header on this page to read This page is for reporting and discussing urgent or chronic matters incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors? Not that anyone would read it anyway. But really – an argument over whether a cake does or does not have chocolate in it [2] is an ANI matter? On the other hand, there seems to be a pattern here [3] so maybe we should take this to Arbcom.
  • "Tastes great!" "Less filling!" "Tastes great!!" "Less filling!!" Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Vandalism always looks so much more artistic in Italiano doesn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks and disruption by Etherialemperor[edit]

User was blocked by There'sNoTime for 48 hours. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) 03:57, 25 August 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.

The edit that spurred this report is here where Etherialemperor calls me a "fag".

This coolness after disruption on Richard Spencer where Etherialemperor repeatedly changed "supremacist" to "nationalist" for the entry on Richard B. Spencer, despite the lead sentence of that BLP calling him a white supremacist. Etherialemperor tried to edit the BLP despite the HTML comment warning against such a change to the lead. Additionally, editors who reverted Etherialemperor where called editing in "bad faith" (WP:NPA) for disagreeing. This user's POV and apparent dislike of certain types of people is affecting their editing and causing disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for the personal attack, given there's no doubt it was meant as such. There are other issues here, but initially I'd like to see how they act once their block expires -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 07:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
NB. edit referenced above has been revision deleted -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 07:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your swift response! EvergreenFir (talk) 07:57, 22 August 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.

Editwarring (would report to 3RR, but i'm involved)[edit]

The original issue has been dealt with - Stuffedturkey was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. While the user is hinting at sock puppetry or what-not, he hasn't edited since (over 24 hours now) and if we see further disruption, we can deal with it in the correct channels. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:49, 25 August 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:Stuffedturkey seems to be on a crusade about Gap Inc. and seems to be operating under the impression (s)he can make up their own rules. They have been editwarring againnst several editors, removing sourced content and (apparently) not accepting archive.is as a substitute.

I have tried several times to appeal to this users reason, but to no avail. This response to a formal 3RR warning was the straw than broke the camels back. The user in question is either incapable or unwilling to cooperate. Kleuske (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

While you were posting this, I was in the process of blocking Stuffedturkey for an absolutely clear-cut case of Righting Great Wrongs edit-warring. I've only made it 24 hours in the hope that it will serves as enough of a shock to jolt ST into becoming a productive editor. Since ST appears to be a single-purpose account dedicated purely to edit-warring on this issue, if it starts again when the block expires the next block will be indefinite. ‑ Iridescent 23:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I saw that. Thanks. But I think the issues are deeper than just editwarring. Maybe they learn. Kleuske (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
My thanks as well. Would it be appropriate to revert Stuffedturkey's last edit, or should it be left alone? NewEnglandYankee (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll leave that to people who know about the topic to decide—I neither know nor care whether ST is correct, just that they're refusing to comply with Wikipedia's rules despite having them repeatedly explained. ‑ Iridescent 23:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I took the risk and reverted per WP:IAR despite it being my 4th revert. If they return, they can make their case on the talk-page. It may even be a good case. Kleuske (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
A WP:DUCK (User:2600:100f:b116:5d10:5bc7:9354:8e21:1f40) just showed up. Can Iridescent oblige once more? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Since they only appear to have a single interest, I've just semi'd the page until they get bored rather than waste my time playing whack-a-mole with the socks. ‑ Iridescent 23:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
That should do the trick. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: I expect we haven't seen the end of this. See Special:Diff/796937853. —Guanaco 00:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but since they only appear to have a single interest the socks should be easy enough to spot. I assume this is a particularly inept PR department, as a 15-year-old dispute over labor conditions is unlikely to be a topic that would attract much interest from the general public. ‑ Iridescent 00:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, ST's original claim, that sources don't exist for the "forced abortions in Saipan" story, is manifestly false, as a five second search on gap saipan abortion demonstrates. ‑ Iridescent 00:08, 24 August 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.

The Oklahoma Vandal returns[edit]

(non-admin closure) Vandal blocked 2 weeks. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:42, 25 August 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.

This time he's at 50.96.158.181. KFOR-TV: [4] [5] [6] List of programs broadcast by MeTV: [7] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Please do not forget to notify the reported user. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:19, 25 August 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.

Disruptive editing still persists in Zapad 2017 exercise[edit]

(non-admin closure) article protected, all three socks blocked. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 25 August 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.

Although User:Vladimir serg has been indefinitely blocked by Malinaccier for disruptive editing, similar massive deletions continue, probably by a sock — User:Pravdorub1986 ([8]), in Zapad 2017 exercise. As I already suggested, the best option would be to semi-block the article. The issue may be way more serious than somebody being just stroppy.Axxxion (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The level of possible disruption on this article isn't nearly high enough to warrant protection of this article right now. Report the individual users for violations of policies if it gets to that level - if you think these accounts are sock puppets, file an SPI. If the disruption is repeated and vandalism, report it to AIV. If the users edit war, report it at AN3. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Oshwah: You would do well to have another look: multiple massive deletions have occurred just within the last few hours: [9]. Also, when looking at the edit history, analyse actual timing of disruptive reverts: the article has been subject to massive deletions at least a few times each day for the past week or so. All reverts are being made by unconfirmed users, through just-registered accounts - thus reporting anyone specifically does not make any sense.Axxxion (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The article has been semi-protected and both users are indefinitely blocked as sock puppet accounts. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

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

IP whitewashing events[edit]

Reported IP has been blocked for block evasion. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:12, 25 August 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 have dealt with this IP, 2600:8800:FF0E:1200:150C:31B:85B8:805E, who has been repeatedly disrupting pages on Portal:Current events, removing events because they violate WP:SOAPBOX, even when it isn't. When one reverts its edits, it reverts them back, with personal attacks, like evading a block or a sock puppet, when it isn't.

I suggest blocking that IP, and semi-protecting pages he attacked. That has nothing to do but to cause edit wars and throw personal attacks. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hatting personal attacks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • this guy is a sock of a permanently banned user how obvious can it be - his method is always the same disagree with him and he starts an afd like this one - he is WP:BLOCKEVASION WP:SOCKPUPPET) - he then waits for an admin to buy the afd lies cause he has a named account and I always use an anonip — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:FF0E:1200:150C:31B:85B8:805E (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
All those messages by that IP are personal attacks. Please ignore them.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
who does he think he is kidding I can name over a hundred named accounts now which all follow the same pattern just as this one is doing - you may ask why don't I just start a sock puppet investigation? what would be the point? even now I am sure he is starting 10 more new socks to get his way as HE HAS DONE FOR YEARS!!!--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:150C:31B:85B8:805E (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • IP /64 subnet blocked for one month for block evasion, personal attacks and disruptive editing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Malcolmxl5: Thanks. That IP is riling me up already, as it kept on hounding me, at every revert and report of his disruptive edits. Thanks for the help. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 09:16, 24 August 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.

Request for review of administrative actions: User:John[edit]

No positive outcome will arise with this thread remaining open. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:15, 25 August 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:John is an admin who is involved in a long ANI discussion here involving an editor other than myself. John is by far in the minority regarding community feeling toward the editor under discussion, and has used intemperate and uncivil language, referring to those who disagree with him as "a hanging mob." Attempts to speak with him with respect and in a reasonable tone are met with inappropriately defensive, accusatory language.

But what makes this serious enough to warrant review is his misuse of admin privileges, through his attempts to intimidate and harass those who disagree with. At that same ANI, another editor started the thread WP:ANI#John's chilling effect tactics after John went to those editors' talk pages — and only the talk pages of those who disagree with him — to place discretionary-sanctions template. As the other editor wrote, "Do note John's chilling effect here, here, here, here, here and here simply because he is not getting his way."

Compounding matters is that after not even a half-hour, another admin involved in the overall discussion, who agrees with John, peremptorily closed down the John discussion. (That seems a conflict of interest to me, but that's a separate issue.) Since John's attempt at intimidating editors who disagree with him did not get a proper airing out, it seems reasonable to bring it here as per instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship WP:ADMINABUSE, in the hope that other admins will allow the issue to even be discussed. Any admin who goes around to those who disagree with him to implicitly threaten them deserves scrutiny.

I say all this with the full expectation that, given his behavior, he may claim "discretionary sanctions" to block me simply for bringing this up, even though I have not touched any of the articles mentioned in the ANI since the ANI began over a day ago.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, as seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive812#User:John and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPs) and User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 14#Continuing disruption by User:John on biography articles, I've been through this. I understand how you feel, but it's going to take WP:ArbCom for John to be touched. This thread is likely to ram up more support for John and Hillbillyholiday's disruption. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
If you're serious about this, you should take it to ARBCOM. If you're not serious, you should withdraw this thread. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
it seems reasonable to bring it here as per instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship
Help me out here, Tenebrae, I don't see said instructions on linked page. ―Mandruss  02:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
My apologies; it appears at WP:ADMINABUSE, which says in part: "[I]f the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can proceed with dispute resolution (see this section below for further information). One possible approach is to use Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to request feedback from the community...." Since the discussion about John's intimidation was cut short by a non-disinterested party, I am following those instructions and opening a formal abuse discussion here. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This has now moved into the category of Theater of the Absurd. Another thread very similar to this about the same editor/admin was already quickly closed above. Can an uninvolved administrator close this before it gets any further out of hand and ridiculous? -- ψλ 02:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I will note, though, that in that first discussion I linked to above, admin Nyttend stated the following: "Knowing nothing about any of these publications, I cannot offer an opinion about whether they are reliable sources. That being said, WP:V really is our primary content policy, aside from the limited situations in which we need to ignore all other rules. BLP absolutely may not be used as a trump card to censor stuff we don't like. If you get blocked, an unblock and immediate RFCU on John will follow." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

For the record: User:John is probably best off to disengage from the HillbillyHoliday thread. I'd rather not read the full details of his history with Flyer22 so I can't comment further there. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Per WP:CLOSE, uninvolved editors can close discussions, and GoldenRing was clearly involved and should not have done that close. GR, whether or not you were "right", selectively closing a sub-section in a discussion that you have already involved yourself is quite obviously not allowed and will virtually never make a situation better. I understand you're a new admin, but this is basic, basic stuff and you're going to be expected to exercise better judgment than this. Swarm 03:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, GoldenRing, this and this were shockingly inappropriate removals. WP:TPO gives you no right to remove another editor's comments simply because they added them after a discussion you closed. This, particularly in the context of your WP:INVOLVED close, borders on serious abuse. Given the fact that your RfA was a serious outlier/long-shot, and that you were only promoted by a margin of about one or two 'crat votes (and with my support), I'm honestly shocked to see you behaving so arbitrarily in your administrative capacity. Swarm 03:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I do not see how the margin of GR's RFA is relevant to the validity of their administrative actions. As one user concluded in their 2009 study, "The overall support percentage in an RfA is a very poor predictor of how successful the administrator will be." Moreover, as noted in the aforementioned cratchat, "The [RFA] opposition is based almost exclusively on concerns about the candidate's activity levels and numbers of edits," not of potential abuse (emphasis mine). Is an admin whose RFA passed in the discretionary zone deserving of greater scrutiny than one who had a >75% support RFA? GABgab 04:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      • @GeneralizationsAreBad: That bit was just a personal reaction that I offered as an aside, as a recently-promoted admin's RfA supporter. I was just shocked, because frankly I had no doubt that this user would go out of their way to prove the opposition wrong. It didn't actually have any bearing on my commentary on the "validity" (read: invalidity) of their administrative actions. If you'd like to get meta and discuss my opinion on the RfA further, come on over to my talk page. I do think a recent, very close promotion is relevant context to an instance of problematic admin behavior. But just to be clear, my statements pointing out the borderline-abusiveness of those actions are not a matter that relates to the RfA in any way. Those actions were a quite simply a straightforward breach of policy, guidelines, and community norms, and that would be the fact of the matter whether it was a new admin or a longstanding one, a discretionary promotion or a unanimous WP:300 one. As such, they should be seen as an administrative warning, with a bit of personal disappointment expressed on the side. Not some sort of convoluted criticism based on their RfA. Swarm 04:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Or, put more simply: That's a strawman. I pointed out the borderline RfA for this user's own sake. Don't detract from the seriousness of their actions. Swarm 05:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      • As an aside, I'd caution against using a 2009 study of the RfA process in an argument about recently made admins. As anyone watching ANI will be aware, the RfA process and standards have evolved considerately in the past 8 years, so that many of the successful RfAs of yesterday would be snow-closed today. Cjhard (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Swarm, I thought Golden Ring wasn't really INVOLVED and said as much; looking over the thread again, I see that it was not a good choice for them to close that subthread. However, once a thread is closed, editors should respect that. As far as John is concerned, I am not aware that he took any administrative action, so this whole thing is a bit moot. If placing a templated AC/DS warning counts as intimidation, then hundreds of us are guilty of thousands of acts of intimidation. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Editors should respect a closure. I agree. Unfortunately, WP:TPO is pretty straightforward. You can't just delete other people's comments. You just can't. It's not allowed. Simple as that. Swarm 05:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      • I disagree that TPO is that simple. Editing closed discussions is clearly disruptive, which TPO describes as a "borderline case". In this case, the extent of my involvement is to have spent around three hours reading diffs and the whole of a very acrimonious discussion which Flyer22 Reborn has done their best to bludgeon, then comment on it. Flyer22 Reborn then chose to interpret a perfectly ordinary discretionary sanctions notice as a sort of administrative abuse. I considered closing the section swiftly a and explaining their error a kindness. When they persisted (and repeating an unfounded allegation is a personal attack) I closed again as a gentler option than just blocking them for the PA. In summary, I am sorry to have disappointed you; my intentions were good.
      • As regards this report, policy is absolutely crystal clear that any user may post discretionary sanctions notices to anyone, so long as the user has not received the same notice in the past twelve months. For someone who has been here as long as Flyer22 Reborn, and has received a DS notification in the past, it is stretching AGF to believe they don't know this, but I decided to treat it as a good-faith misunderstanding. For Tenebrae to bring it up here again after it has been explained repeatedly, is simply disruptive. Someone should use the fish appropriately and close this. GoldenRing (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Now and then someone edits a closed discussion to (for example) add a point of information that would be helpful if the discussion is referenced in the future, etc. There's nothing disruptive about that. Possibly such follow-on comments would be better added after the hat-box (especially if they're substantive in a way that makes the closer's summary not make sense) and if they're in the box you might gently move them after the box with an appropriate edit summary. But simply delete them? Outrageous. It seems August has been the month for admins who need to go back to admin school. EEng 14:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Note after close (like EEng): Thank you, Swarm and EEng. I am not going to respond to GoldenRing's mischaracterizations. I will state that the only reason that I did not revert his removals is because I did not want to be blocked by him or someone else. After he reverted me, I was surprised that he is an admin since, because, although he has been registered since 2005, he wasn't truly active as an editor until 2013 and I don't see a lot of editing experience when looking at his contributions, but that is a RfA matter. And as for this editor who added a DS notification to my talk page back in 2015, that editor is also an involved editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:45, 25 August 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.

The sport is Athletics or Track & Field? The specialization is 100 m + 4x100 m relay or is right Sprinting?[edit]

Discussion now on going at talk page of article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Note: Section was moved from WP:AN) I am referring to this roll back of the User:Lugnuts (already 5 times blocked for edit war). Tell me he is right and I retire in good order :) --Kasper2006 (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Why aren't you discussing this on the talk page of the article, where this should be done first? Also, disputes should go to WP:ANI as it said in the big box at the top of the page. Also, you did not notify the user of this issue as it specifically said to do so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Track and Field is more specific than Athletics, so Lugnuts was correct. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MTA Bridges and Tunnels (Police)[edit]

I'm honestly not sure where to report this. The above users have been engaging in a long term edit war over these two articles, resulting in the indef semi-protection of TBTA Police by C.Fred (talk · contribs), as well as multiple shorter term protections on MTA Bridges and Tunnels. GySgtHartman appears to have a COI, by being an employee of the agency in question. He is also the only logged in user involved, meaning that he can edit through the protection. However, he also appears to be editing while logged out as the IPv4, except when necessary. Could an admin look at this and consider applying some blocks? Thanks. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

There is also a sockpuppet situation in these articles:
Said user focused on law enforcement accounts in New York state with a particular focus on changing any mention of "police officer" in many articles to "peace officer". Some—but not necessarily all—of the IP edits may be from him. The semi-protection of TBTA Police was in relation to this block evasion (although I didn't realize I made it indef). That's why I've been actively monitoring these articles. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Ejdjr account appears to be in use for promoting advertisement of his affiliated institution and personnel using Wikipedia as a platform[edit]

The use of Wikipedia for the purpose of advertisement of an institution with which User:Ejdjr is affiliated by the creation of a new page for it is against Wikipedia policy. His edits at The Friedman Brain Institute have had extensive negative comments from several administrators and other editors which seem to be ignored. User:Ejdjr is also removing quoted text from biography articles about personnel at his institution written by the NY Times which he simply calls ungrammatical and deletes at will. This he did at Dennis Charney several times. User:Ejdjr appears to be involved in the use of his account on multiple occassions for furthering the purposes of his affiliated institution and its related personnel by trying to create a new article to promote it and by trying to delete referenced materials associated with personnel at his affiliated institution. He has been informed on his Talk page that if he persists in using Wikipedia for the purpose of creating an advertisement page again for his affiliated institution or deleting referenced material from articles associated with personnel related to his institution that his account priviledges may be restricted which User:Ejdjr continues to ignore. Since I am only an infrequent editor at Wikipedia, it seemed appropriate to leave this report for further eval. 146.203.126.241 (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. I've left a message on that user's page as well. I do appreciate the cleanup you have been doing behind Ejdjr's quite blatant POV editing, which has indeed violated policy on several occasions (e.g. here). I encourage you to create an account, and continue contributing! Thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree the account seems to have been used for undisclosed promotional editing. Thanks for giving them warnings and advice, Jytdog and 146.xx. But since it's been over a month since they last edited, I don't think there's much more we can do until they return — if they do — and, hopefully, respond to you. Their promotional article draft has been rejected so many times they may have given up. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC).

Disruptive edits to citations by User:Quinton Feldberg; editor is not reponsive[edit]

Quinton Feldberg has recently made hundreds of WP:MEATBOT-like edits that are erroneous, useless, or both. Many of his edits have been useful and constructive, but his error rate is far too high. He has been notified multiple times on his talk page of the errors and has been asked to correct his scripts and do a better job of previewing edits. He has responded a couple of times saying that he would look into it, but the edits have continued.

Yesterday, I asked him to stop editing until his scripts and previewing behavior were fixed. He did not do so. He continued editing, with an error/useless-edit rate of around 25%. The edits continue as I write this. I am requesting that an administrator review this situation to determine if I am overreacting or if some sort of official response is warranted.

User talk:Quinton Feldberg#Citation edits becoming disruptive is a good place to start. There are multiple sections above and below that section with links to diffs and explanations of the problems with the edits.

If this is the wrong venue or I could have done something on my own, I apologize in advance and will be happy to receive a trout for your trouble. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I have told them to stop doing semi-automated edits and join this discussion. Given the high error rate and disruptive nature of semi-automated editing where the editor does not respond to concerns, I will block the account should they continue -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 13:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I have unfortunately had to block the account (3 hours) to prevent continued disruption - hopefully this will spark some constructive discussion. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 13:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. I've seen this user's contributions on my watchlist a lot of late, but always thought they were doing good. Hopefully they'll reply to the block notice. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
As others have noted, perhaps three quarters of their edits are useful, but the error rate is too high. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I will fix the script. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Need somebody to look at the interaction between QubixQdotta and myself as it has descended into personal attacks and now threats[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the best place for this but things seem to be getting rather out of hand between User:QubixQdotta and myself to the point that I think that it can be considered an incident.

He has accused me of Gaslighting (diff), which is not a term I had heard of before, but based on the article I take to be a personal attack as it refers to an intentionally abusive form of dishonest manipulation. I am genuinely unable to see how my actions could be interpreted that way so I removed the comment and warned him for personal attacks. He has doubled down on this, reposting the accusation on his own talk page(diff) he has since posted what I take to be a threat on my talk page: diff (I'm not too bothered by the first part of that but the part saying "You might be seeing me a lot these days, so maybe trying to be my worst enemy right now isn't the best idea. Just saying." doesn't seem too healthy.)

OK. So how did we get here? Did I provoke him? I'll admit to taking a robust line with the large number of editors seeking to engage in revisionism on Fascism, Nazism and related articles. (Nice uncontroversial subjects, right?) I see the attempts to recast Fascism and Nazism as being left wing, or anything other than right wing, as revisionism and contrary to the historical consensus, and that has long been the general line on those pages' talk pages. That said, I also try to remember that there are intentional revisionists and those who have been confused into repeating the revisionist line in good faith and not to bite these people. I am also well aware that the motivation for this is more to distance right wing politics from Nazism than to attempt to rehabilitate it. I am sympathetic to those who do not wish to be associated with Nazism (I mean, who would?) but this is not a legitimate was to do it. In this case I may have jumped the gun a little but I think I was correct to see something more than a confused editor here.

Let's step through it chronologically: (I'll prefix QQ for QubixQdotta and DR for myself)

  • QQ: diff - It starts here. An unreferenced revisionist edit to Nazism.
  • DR: diff - I revert.
  • DR: diif - I issue a level 2 warning for deliberate factual errors. I am prepared to concede that that was a little harsh. We have had a tidal wave of this sort of bad editing and I may have let my annoyance with others spill over into this. In retrospect maybe it should have been a level 1 or 2 for unreferenced changes.
  • QQ: diff - The usual revisionist line about the Nazi's being "socialist" on my talk page but far more egregiously than normal he flat out accuses the mainstream history books which we use as sources of dishonesty.
  • DR: diff - I reply explaining why this is wrong. I'll admit that my annoyance is showing as I have heard this line so many times before and I do find it hard to believe that it is advanced in good faith when combined with an attack on the sources in general. I'd call it robust not abusive. I use the word "stupid" to refer to the idea of taking Nazi terminology at face value but I do not call QubixQdotta stupid. I try to send him off to look at the Talk page archives, look at the sources and to use the article talk page, not my talk page, if he wants to press it further. I'll admit the end is a bit overdramatic but I think the basic point, that anybody who doesn't recognise mainstream sources as valid is not going to get very far here, is valid.
  • QQ: diff - Replies with the accusation of "gaslighting" and a claim that he is trying to work constructively, which I find hard to take seriously. (Over on Talk:Nazism he was questioning sources again, not in any specific way, just not really accepting that sources are valid in general, a line his has since softened.)
  • DR: diff - I revert the accusation and rollup what has gone before.
  • DR: diff - I warn him, only at level 2, against personal attacks.
  • QQ: diff - Copies the accusation to his talk page.
  • QQ: diff - Posts two messages on my talk page. One is a general expression of annoyance, which I'm OK with, but the second one seems to be a quite blatant threat and that is what brings us here.

And that's where we are. There is also some back and forth on Talk:Nazism but that is not as bad and I won't bore you all by itemising it.

In retrospect, I would have handled it differently, playing out the rope a lot more calmly for him to hang himself with, but I do not believe that I provoked him in any way that can justify a complaint of gaslighting (which, based on the article, is a much more serious accusation than it may at first sound) or that final threat in which he seems to be saying that he is moving in and taking over here. The threat is seriously disturbing. That is why I have brought this here. Maybe, or maybe not, the rest of the story is overkill but I didn't want to give the false impression that this came from nowhere.

It would be great if somebody could look this over and decide where, if anywhere, we go from here. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You called me "stupid" and a "horse that was brought to water" when I was simply trying to have a civil discussion with you. I tried to keep my cool and talk to you, but you went back to insults towards my intelligence and motive for editing here (not constructive and by far not WP:KEEPCOOL or WP:GOODFAITH). I am here to help the project and I have gotten nothing but negativity and insults about me. What I meant by my statement was that I don't want to be your enemy if I'm going to be working with you on the article. I admit the statement could definately be taken out of context but thats not what I meant. But anyways, I don't care for the way I've been treated by DanielRigal and I can honestly say that I have never sent any bad words your way about what you believe in or about your intelligence. From an honest place of respect for you coming into this article, I feel very disrespected as a fellow editor and it really isn't okay. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 00:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Gaslighting is making one question their own perception (you claim was an "attack"; it was more of a expression of how I felt) - which I said based on the fact you said, "If you really do believe that all the history books are wrong (and intentionally dishonest) then Wikipedia is probably not for you. In fact, that seems to be a view incompatible with any understanding of the real world at all." Another insult towards my intelligence, I was honestly offended because I'm a free thinker and I question everything. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 01:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Although the rhetoric got slightly out of hand, at the core of this is a content dispute. QQ made an unsourced edit based on their interpretation of Nazism, basically WP:OR, which was correctly reverted and Daniel has admitted to being harsher than necessary.

QQ's followup comment, Daniel's 4th diff, shows a misunderstanding of sourcing. Irrespective of what we, as editors, think of the source material, if the source is reliable and states that Nazism is far right wing then that is what will be entered. QubixQdotta, the "stupid" comment could not be interpreted as being directed at you and rather as a generic statement. At this point, what I see is that QubixQdotta overreacted a bit and things got heated but nothing that can't be mended. However, if you, QubixQdotta, want to push an edit like the one that started this mess then you better make sure you have solid reliable sources that back you up. Blackmane (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

That original edit was made on the fly because I thought it was vandalism. I don't usually edit political articles, so I didn't even know people considered Nazism far-right. It was alien to me. "QubixQdotta overreacted a bit and things got heated but nothing that can't be mended." I appreciate the kind words but honestly, I'm positive I kept my cool the whole time. (maybe tone doesn't translate well through text?) While I'm sorry I didn't source on the "far-left" edit, that doesn't change the fact DanielRigal escalated the whole thing into calling me names, insulting my intelligence, and a "horse that was brought to water" and even recently "playing out the rope a lot more calmly for him to hang himself with". With all due respect, I didn't say anything of that nature to DanielRigal. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 02:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Another misunderstanding is that my motivation is to take away sources. That's not my motivation. It's to elaborate on why academics think in these diverse ways. I read the Nazism article and noticed very simplistic bouts of information being sourced heavily with pages and pages of information from textbooks: "The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics." (sourced here Nazism#cite_note-Fritzsche_Eatwell_Griffin-13). It made me extremely curious as to how this extremely sophisticated 3-in-1 source could be summed up into such a simple sentence (it wasn't even sourced a second time), and it made me extremely curious to know what was in those pages and how I could utilize them more effectively. The article just left a lot to be answered. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 02:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
If you're coming here to look for answers and make edits and to elaborate on why academics think in these diverse ways then you're in the wrong place. The whole point of Wikipedia is to act as a collation of what reliable sources say and not to provide a forum on the discourse of whichever topic one may be curious about. Nor is it a place to interpret what one source says against what another says. If you don't see what the main goal of Wikipedia is and how your first edit set things off, then DanielRigal is correct in saying that Wikipedia is not for you. Blackmane (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Once again with due respect, you're missing what I'm saying. I did not say anything about interpreting sources or providing a forum. I'm talking about taking what these academics have said and providing their information as is. What I'm doing is totally based on Wikipedia policies about WP:NPOV. What I want to do is the exact opposite of interpretation. It's pure fact and facts about the views of academics. I discover facts, I don't interpret. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 04:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
You misunderstand WP:NPOV. It does not mean that we give equal WP:Weight to every possible idea and theory. We base our articles on the consensus of experts, in this case historians of the Nazi regime. Now, we also will sometimes mention other WP:fringey viewpoints, but even then they have to be espoused by recognized experts, and we do not present them as the prevailing view or give them the same exposure as the generally recognized viewpoint.
In this instance, that Nazism was a far-right movement is undoubtedly accepted by the vast majority of historians and political scientists. Yes "Socialism" is in the name, quite deliberately so, as when Hitler changed the name of the party he was attempting to attract as many people to it as possible. The early party platform (the so-called "25 points", which was never rescinded) did include socialist programs, and there was even a "socialist" wing of the party, led by the Strasser brothers, but Hitler drove Otto Strasser out and purged Gregor Strasser in the Night of the Long Knives, just as he did Ernst Rohm, another socialist-leaning Nazi, and Josef Goebbels, a Strasserite with a socialist background, fell totally under Hitler's spell. In the end, even though the 25 points was never withdrawn, and even though some programs Hitler initiated when he took power were quasi-socialistic, overall, the party and the regime was not left-wing, and the "Socialist" in the party's name was honored mostly in the breech. To spend much more time then I've done here exploring the socialist aspects of Nazism would be to give it WP:UNDUE weight.
So, bottom line, you've been here a little over a year, but you apparently haven't totally grasped how things are done and what our editorial policies are. I'd suggest that you bone up on those before you get yourself in another editing dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
And please, fix your sig. It's not only unreadable, it's so far down below the line that it visually interferes with the line below it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
No I actually didn't misunderstand NPOV. I read the part about undue weight too. I'm talking about taking what these academics have said and providing their information as is. What I'm doing is totally based on Wikipedia policies about WP:NPOV. What I want to do is the exact opposite of interpretation. It's pure fact and facts about the views of academics. I discover facts, I don't interpret. [qub/x q;otta] 05:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, you actually have misinterpreted it, because you're still saying the same thing, and it's not what NPOV means. You may have read the part about "undue weight", but you obviously didn't understand it. Considering how adamant you are about this, and how resistant you are to accepting that you are wrong, I think it may be worthwhile for editors to take a look at your article edits to see if you've been following this false reading of NPOV in them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Thank you for altering your sig. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@QubixQdotta: Please further adjust your signature to conform to MOS:CONTRAST, thanks. — fortunavelut luna 09:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
On my browser, the username is unclickable. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, his username isn't linked. :P — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The boxes after the name appear to have the required link. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The comment about QQ being around for a little over a year reminded me of something QQ said about having been "a very experienced Wikipedian" when I welcomed them back in May 2016. This led to a rabbit hole, and I ended up filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jump Guru. Oops. It plausibly looks to me like a dormant account was reactivated to !vote in an AFD in 2016. It's a bit stale, but regardless, QQ definitely claimed to be an experienced editor shortly after the account was created. Grayfell (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, what a surprise, you could knock me over with a feather! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • so the OP's main reason for filing was this diff by QubixQdotta, and the part of that the OP found somewhat disturbing was: You might be seeing me a lot these days, so maybe trying to be my worst enemy right now isn't the best idea. Just saying. I agree that this is... thuggish.
Above, QubixQdotta wrote: I don't usually edit political articles, so I didn't even know people considered Nazism far-right.
Really?
I looked at their contribs. Here is their edit count. They have made about 750 edits, with 20 deleted.
  • Around 200 of those edits are related to Peckerwood gangs, which arose in prison in opposition to black gangs and have some roots in/affiliations with the Aryan Brotherhood. (per the editing statastics, Qubix is the leading contributor by far to the peckerwood page.
  • It is true that Qubix doesn't contribute much to mainstream political pages, but their biggest chunk of Talk is at Alt-right (see their contribs there; that includes a string of edits in May (their last edits to the page) that were so offensive they were redacted as you can see in the history here. In their second comment from back in January they give very strong and clear views on alt-right politics. I see no sense of ignorance about politics there.
By February at the alt-right page they were being asked to propose concrete changes already, and replied by continuing to write things like this: ... "White supremacy" is a label that often gets swept over things that people are too lazy to further investigate. I understand it makes you guys happy to see nazis get burned alive on Wikipedia, but I rather see truth about the matter, not what I see on the news everyday. ...Excuse me if I get passionate about the truth of topics but it really means alot to hear truth which includes the truth about the movement's racism and Richard Spencer's crazy bigoted garbage. I'm used to my community telling me alternative facts/weird conspiracies about politicians and that I'm supposed to believe them. I come to Wikipedia for truth and to spread truth.
By April they were writing things like this: I know right OP? It's almost like elitist editors on this page completely ignored WP:COI and WP:NPOV. And why so passionately too? Oh I think I know: $$$. :)
So we have some of the The Truth and the usual accompanying conspiracy theorizing going on here...
  • And then there is stuff related to Nazi page already discussed above.
QubixQdotta is s[bringing the tiger into Wikipedia way too much (per WP:Beware of tigers). I am not sure what the right answer is but Qubix definitely needs to rethink how they are approaching these topics, and other editors at them. The SPI is also turning very strange... I cannot make sense out of what this is person is doing in WP or the various voices they use here and ways/topics they edit. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I was looking at the SPI and wondering whether I could/should say anything helpful/useful but the truth is that I can't really make head nor tail of it. I'd just like to thank everybody for their time taken looking into this matter which has become far more complex and time consuming than I expected. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
The SPI may be confusing, but some things have been pretty well established:
  • QQ had a previous account User:QubixRaver, so when QQ said (spontaneously, in two different places) that they were around before, they were telling the truth, and when they said on the SPI they were making that up, they were not telling the truth;
  • QubixRaver also said they had a previous account, in words very similar to those used by QQ
  • QQ claimed responsibility for the article Scribner's Magazine, which had been heavily edited by User:Jump Guru
  • QQ and Jump Guru both !voted "keep" at AfD for an article on a window company which was deleted as promotional. Neither editor's normal contributions show any proclivity for dealing with such a subject, which is completely outside their usual territories.
There's some more, but those are the main points. If nothing else comes up, an admin will have to determine whether a CU is justified or if a block on behavioral grounds is warranted on the basis of that information. I'm continuing to look to see if there's anything else worth reporting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

need help: important data being arbitrarily deleted[edit]

No admin action required. Happy editing (non-admin closure) Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 26 August 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.

please help!! this guy keeps removing important, specific sourced data pertaining to an important historical object, from the actual entry on the historical object itself, Plimpton 322!!

here is link to edit at article. thanks!!!--Sm8900 (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You need to take this to the article talk page - there are far more refs than are required to support the statement. The trimming of recent articles was appropriate. There is not apparent need for administrative action here. You are also required to inform the user of your post here, as stated in the bold orange bar at the top of the screen when you made this post. I have done this for you, this time. ScrpIronIV 16:29, 25 August 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.

Protection for Zapad 2017 exercise, yet again[edit]

(non-admin closure) article protected; all three likely socks thus far have been indeffed. other advice has been taken. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 25 August 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.

Just transferring recent postings from above to down here for better attention, as the issue is getting worse:

Although User:Vladimir serg has been indefinitely blocked by Malinaccier for disruptive editing, similar massive deletions continue, probably by a sock — User:Pravdorub1986 ([10]), in Zapad 2017 exercise. As I already suggested, the best option would be to semi-block the article. The issue may be way more serious than somebody being just stroppy.Axxxion (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The level of possible disruption on this article isn't nearly high enough to warrant protection of this article right now. Report the individual users for violations of policies if it gets to that level - if you think these accounts are sock puppets, file an SPI. If the disruption is repeated and vandalism, report it to AIV. If the users edit war, report it at AN3. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Oshwah: You would do well to have another look: multiple massive deletions have occurred just within the last few hours: [11]. Also, when looking at the edit history, analyse actual timing of disruptive reverts: the article has been subject to massive deletions at least a few times each day for the past week or so. All reverts are being made by unconfirmed users, through just-registered accounts - thus reporting anyone specifically does not make any sense.Axxxion (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Axxxion - See my response in the previous Zapad 2017 ANI thread. The two users have been indef'd as sock puppets, and the article has been semi-protected :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Semi-protected for one month. These people need to start talking on the talk page. A report to SPI may be worthwhile. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Awesome! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:33, 25 August 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.

Poo refdesk troll again[edit]

Future Perfect at Sunrise removed the LTA thread and blocked the I.P. (non-admin closure)fortunavelut luna 14:30, 26 August 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.

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought that was a genuine question. How do you know it's a troll? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The poo troll is a LTA who uses the refdesk for scatological inquiries. The justification for removing the section was in my hatting reason. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Medeis have probably also seen this person before. This has been happening for a long long time now. The situation is comparable to, for example, the nazi refdesk troll. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see.In that case, perhaps removal might be called for. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Yep. I have asked StuRat to revert himself. The proxy has been blocked. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:51, 26 August 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.
IPs blocked and reverted.(non-admin closure) (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:50, 26 August 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.

He is back with 49.172.53.99 (blocked already) and 167.160.140.188 {not blocked yet). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

167.160.140.188 now blocked. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:06, 26 August 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.

DatBot not resizing Non-free images[edit]

NOT AN ISSUE FOR ADMINISTRATORS
The bot is not causing damage, so the proper course of action is to ask the operator on his talk page. — JJMC89(T·C) 19:33, 26 August 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.

Recently, I tagged an image I uploaded for Non-free image reduction. Normally, DatBot is supposed to automatically resize non-free images, but lately, the bot hasn't been running the program. It hasn't touched non-free images since July. Pinging DatGuy as the operator of the bot. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:05, 26 August 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:Michaele and Tareq[edit]

indeffed (non-admin closure) (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:01, 27 August 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.

Wikipedia:Username_policy#Usernames_implying_shared_use -- they have been warned multiple times on their talkpage that they need to create a new account (or two). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

They keep removing those warnings, and thus the category from their page so they're aware that they're being asked. Interestingly enough it looks likely they may be blocked for their editing soon anyway as they keep adding user generated external links as references despite numerous complaints and notices to stop. Canterbury Tail talk 15:11, 26 August 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.

I am reporting this account. User:Satoshi Kondo[edit]

OP has been blocked for sock-puppetry and their contributions have been reverted; $100 to Floquenbeam. ~Awilley (talk) 22:51, 27 August 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:Satoshi Kondo There is an account under Japanese name that is editing articles on Korean history, modifying the historical truth. I am reporting this account. USAthegreatest (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the big warning at the top of the page that clearly says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page"? Edit:I've notified them of this discussion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Is editing an article on Korean history by someone with a Japanese name verboten? If you think this persons behavior is problematic, please point out the behavior. From this side of the screen it's less than crystal clear what you are complaining about (other than someone with a Japanese name). Kleuske (talk)
I just took a look at the edit summaries of the reported user in their contribs, I think it needs a closer look. I am pretty sure referring to an editor as 'Turk' even in passing is not acceptable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
If user pejoratively, yes. But the youngest edit I found of them calling anyone "Turk" is a year old. Kleuske (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Ha you are correct, I missed the switch from August 2016 - 2017 (only one edit between them). From looking at the edit history though they do seem to be getting into a few edit wars involving Japanese influence in the Asian area. Albeit with a year break between. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
For anyone not familiar with the area, there is a long-term issue involving Japan laying claim to influencing/originating various things historically, there is also denial by Koreans over legitimate actual Japanese influence so it goes both ways. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
This reminds of the Goguryeo controversies back in the days. I will take a look at this. Alex ShihTalk 17:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) The reporting user left a message on my talk page asking me to undo an edit on the South Korea article. The edit itself doesn't seem problematic, but I think the user's main issue with it was the inclusion of "Republic of China" next to Taiwan. Bamnamu (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I would not be at all surprised if there is a problem with the reported user, but... With a username like "USAthegreatest", a succession of useless edits to get autoconfirmed, a fast learning curve on where ANI is, and jumping into a hot-contested area where we've had socking issues in the past ... who wants to bet me $100 the reporting user is not a returning blocked/banned user? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Well I've reverted every single on of USA's edits as being pointy and unexplained. Reverting edits because you don't like a user is not an explanation for the edits. They are also removing referenced material and replacing it with unreferenced material. Yes I think chances are they're another user and maybe evading a block, but I don't know of whom. If they continue they're going straight to an indef, not escalating blocks. Canterbury Tail talk 18:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, USATheGreatest appears to be having competence issues. I've been in some communications with them but they're not getting it. Again reverting without good explanations and trying to use webmirror copies of the same Wikipedia article as references for inclusion. I'm about to leave the computer for some time so if someone could keep an eye on their edits it would be appreciated. I've asked them for previous usernames if they've edited before but no response. Canterbury Tail talk 19:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
See this: [12]. Canterbury, I felt you were extremely civil and polite with them on your talk page FWIW. I'm agreeing that this is slowly going into WP:CIR territory. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
FYI, the OP got blocked by Ponyo for sockpuppetry. Kleuske (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Geez, someone should keep track of the number of times socks are discovered because they bring complaints to the noticeboards. It's like a death wish or something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Even better is when they report themselves at SPI. GABgab 01:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I guess that it's no fun socking or trolling unless someone knows you're doing it, so doing it too successfully is not satisfying. Hell, I know that I'm constantly tempted to leave clues towards the discovery of my own vast sock farm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
In the the end it's just the three of us, running this website. The rest are socks. Oh, shit... I shouldn't have said that? Kleuske (talk) 20:08, 26 August 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.

Disruptive user[edit]

Hatting this, per complainant WikiEditCrunch's own "please withdraw the filing to end this from being pointlessly discussed" and "it is time now to just close this discussion as there seems to be no serious issue", since no valid complaint has been articulated much less supported with evidence diffs; and per the WP:SNOW reaction that WikiEditCrunch is not in the right on the more substantive matters. I would expect a WP:BOOMERANG should the same editor file another ANI of this sort, having been informed what ANI is actually for and what standards apply.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am currently struggeling with User:Jytdog.

Recently I revived a WikiProject Wikipedia:WikiProject Investment. Right now im trying to develop tables for investment companies to add structure to them.

I just got started with trying to find users interested in joining the project.

Recently the user (Jytdog) has been criticizing the project and its scope.

I thanked him for helping.But since then he just has not stopped on hounding me and all of my recent edits. The project I revived is quite small still and Im trying to grow it. I tried to explain that I need to discuss it with the other members and that I wil adress issues that he mentioned, but these suggestions of mine were rejected by him.

My edits are being followed and now he is reverting him. I have tried to continue communicating but he just does not seem willing to do so.

Also I have showed him links to the pages Wikipedia:IAR, Wikipedia:You Can't Follow All The Rules, All The Time and Wikipedia:Snowball clause. He has pretty much only been focusing on following the rules rather then improving Wikipedia. Additionally the user does not seem to know enough about the projects topics.

Also the editor seems to have had a history with disruptive editing.

To summarise: I am being prevented from contributing in my limited time on Wikipedia by a user whos main agenda is to strictly stay by the rules rather then using common sense in improving Wikipedia.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

What is happening here is really strange. WikiEditCrunch is enthusiastic but doesn't seem to really grasp (or care) about some of the fundamentals here in WP.
You can review discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Investment.
What appears to be upsetting them at this point are my edits to an article they created, Cambridge Investment Research, which we were discussing at the WikiProject's talk page as an example of WikiEditCrunch's desire to add lists of investment holdings owned by corporate investors/brokers. The page looked like this earlier today.
A bunch of sourcing there was awful and I started cleaning it up, which WikiEditCrunch didn't like... see Talk:Cambridge_Investment_Research.
Am still in the process of trying to put this article on sounder footing when I received notice of this. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jytdog's criticisms. I think WikiEditCrunch is pursuing their own goals regardless of Wikipedia conventions or practicality. I also have doubts about anyone that makes pleas based upon either their donations of time or the readers' desires. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I definitely think that my contributions to Wikipedia are based on how readers can use them (so that they can be practical). Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@WikiEditCrunch: You need to be much more specific than the general complaints in your report. If Jytdog is being disruptive in some way, then you need to provide specific diffs (see WP:DIFF) that show him being disruptive. Same thing if he's unnecessarily preventing you from being productive. WP:IAR is indeed a basic tenet of the project, but you really can't just wave the IAR flag and say that Jytdog's "main agenda is to strictly stay by the rules rather then using common sense" - you're accusing a long-time productive editor of supporting the rules of Wikipedia and saying that he's wrong to do so, so you have to prove your point by providing some evidence why he's wrong to support them. In short, I don't believe any admin is going to sanction Jytdog on the basis of the complaint you just filed; you're going to have to be much more specific and provide damning evidence of the serious violations of behavior you are accusing them of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • WikiEditCrunch, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is a core policy of Wikipedia, but don't be misled into thinking it applies all the time. It doesn't mean "do what you see fit", it means "if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, don't feel obliged to follow it". There are certain rules which for legal or ethical reasons Wikipedia needs to follow, and thus deviation from them will never constitute improvement and this WP:IAR will never come into play, and our policy that all material needs to be sourced to independent, significant sources is one of these. I appreciate you're acting in good faith here, but Jytdog is behaving entirely correctly in removing material sourced to press releases and blogs. ‑ Iridescent 21:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Investment.

Also I totally agree with adding sources to the article.Removing certain once is also good.

What I do not find correct is the hounding of me.Jytdog needs to restrain himself and realise this may not be the right approach. If you take a look at the Project talk page you will see he has made it very difficult for me to understand how I can improve the aspects he is criticiszing. Also only following the rules is counter-productive.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

As has already been explained to you, you need to provide specific evidence of Jytdog hounding you. I am not going to sanction a long-standing Wikipedia editor for following Wikipedia's rules, particularly when you either won't or can't provide any evidence of it. ‑ Iridescent 22:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
(adding) I've tried to skim as best I can this thread, which appears to be the thread about which you're complaining—your refusal to follow Wikipedia practice on threaded conversations makes it hard to follow, but I can see no evidence of Jytdog acting inappropriately there. Per my previous comment, Wikipedia:Verifiability—which includes the need for all claims to be cited to independent, non-trivial, reliable, secondary sources—is a non-negotiable core policy, and is an instance where WP:IAR can't be invoked since reflecting reliable sources is Wikipedia's core purpose. ‑ Iridescent 22:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@WikiEditCrunch: As much sympathy as I have on your enthusiasm, I think you need to refrain from taking things personally. You need to master some basic understanding of how things are done here before starting to invoke IAR. I suggest you withdraw this thread now as it will certainly head to nowhere, and we can work on some advice for you later on maintaining WikiProjects. Alex ShihTalk 22:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Note on the threading thing. This is one of those small things, like saying "please" and "thank you", that makes things work in a society. This goes without saying for experienced users, but we all know that somebody blowing this off, is a sign of somebody who is really not interested in following community norms more broadly. I mentioned this to WikiEditCrunch on their talk page here, which they deleted here, and after I went and threaded all their comments on the WP:Investment talk page here, I went and again asked them to do the threading thing and you can se their responses here.
As I said, a small, tiny thing, but resistance to following this convention is often a sign of larger problems of taking IAR to mean "I will do whatever i want and ignore the policies and guidelines", as we are seeing here more clearly now. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Here are some parts: Part1 Part2 Part3Part4 Part5 Part6

I would like to add that in the beginning Jytdog seemed to be helpful but he quickly became "demanding" and just seems to not be able to calmy adress issues.

About the threading: No one has ever complained to me about threading.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, someone is now. It's annoying that you don't thread, which makes it more difficult to read a discussion, and it's annoying that your signature is on a separate line with a blank line between it and the end of your text, which also makes reading more difficult, and it's annoying that you put every sentence of your comment on a separate line, which makes for visual clutter and, again, more difficulty in reading None of these are earth-shattering, sanction-warranting habits, but they are annoying, and it would be better if you stopped doing them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I would point out to you that the WP:Talk page guidelines provides guidance for editors as to under what circumstances re-formatting another editor's talk page comment is allowed:

Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels...

so Jytdog was quite justified in re-threading your comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I added some links to discussion pages above.I do not think this is a big deal so this discussion should come to a conclusion soon. Cheers.WikiEditCrunch (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
You "do not think this is a big deal"? Then why the heck did you file an AN/I report and accuse another editor of being "disruptive", of preventing you from being productive, and of harboring an unhelpful agenda? Or do you actually mean to say that you were wrong in filing the report, and that you withdraw it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I filed an AN/I report because Jytdog was not able to communicate so someone had to weigh in.I made my case with the discussion parts links I put in here.If you believe that there is nothing wrong with then please withdraw the filing to end this from being pointlessly discussed. CheersWikiEditCrunch (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The ultimate purpose of an AN/I report is to get action from an admin to put a stop to behavioral problems with a warning or a sanction, or to get the community to put pressure on the reported editor to stop. Looking back, do you really think that Jytdog had a failure to communicate, that you did not do your own part in that supposed failure, and that the supposed failure was so drastic that it required admin or community action?
Perhaps I am unique, but whether I agree with him or disagree on any specific issue, I've never know Jytdog to have a problem communicating with other editors. Perhaps you should review the discussions the two of you had with an eye towards trying to understand what Jytdog is attempting to tell you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
BTW, thank you for reformatting your comments and sig, and for properly indenting. It really makes quite a difference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
In this matter Jytdog clearly had problems comunicating with me (in my opinion he was not patient enough;I mean I just started the WikiProject again)
What he was telling me was clear:That I need to adjust the project scope to fit certain guidelines.
In the end I think he could have been a bit more relaxed.I have learned from this to be honest.
Obviously I could have also waited with the AN/I but I think it is time now to just close this discussion as there seems to be no serious issue. Cheers WikiEditCrunch (talk) 23:53, 26 August 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.

Editing based Conflict of interest[edit]

(non-admin closure) Content dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 27 August 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! im just a new registered editors here and last day i try to re-include a philippine part of Kinnara and Garuda sections (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kinnara&action=history but it is already there with a good source based on academic references. Suddenly there was a User named User:Non3tup has trying to revert and delete the philippine sub sections, because their reason its a block evasion but as i know, this removing of a sourced materials are clear violation of wikipedia's policy and not-either stated in the 14 stated rules on wikipedia , so it means its either he is not famillar with the Deletion policy or they just doing it with an Conflict of interest (WP:Conflict of interest) , i dont know what on his or their mind i afraid that it might a conflict of interest based on the ideas of his friends (influence) i hope you can help me to figure out "if this deleted section which is supposedly created by a block editor was illegal despite of it academic proof of sourcing" because i am tired to confront them and i don't like edit wars thank you! (Searcher0 (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC))

PS: No matter where he and his friends take this up im ready because i prove an academic sourced book i just want to verify that troubles about deletion of academically-sourced references thank you! (Searcher0 (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC))
This is a content dispute. You need to use the talk pages for those articles, as he instructed you to do. --Tarage (talk) 07:26, 27 August 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.
That's it? i have feel doubt on those.(Searcher0 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Immediate block needed[edit]

(non-admin closure) Vandal indeffed. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:34, 27 August 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.

Special:Contributions/Deadzeitgeist (returned sock). Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq, done. SarahSV (talk) 02:31, 27 August 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.

Best practices (re-creation of deleted page)[edit]

Monitor Records (New York) was prodded by TenPoundHammer (note, I'm pinging but not "notifying" because his actions were absolutely correct and not up for review) because there was no indication of notability. I know this to be an important classical label in the 1960s-1970s, so I de-prodded and found sources. However, it became blindingly obvious that the article was a blatant copyright violation of the Smithsonian page, so I deleted the article. I plan on creating this article again (non-copyvio) with the sources I found, and my question is thus: Should I re-create the article, which would give me credit in editing history for having created the article (when in fact I am not the true "originator" of the subject), or would it be better to restore the article, and then revdelete all previous versions prior to the "replacement" version I create (thereby giving article creator credit to the copyright violator). I've not run into this situation before in my editing "career" here, and I'd like broader input into what the community deems the most ethical course of action in this situation. Not typical ANI material (fortunately) and maybe this belongs at Village Pump, but I want eyes. Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Create it as a new article. You shouldn't feel guilty about appearing to be the first person to create a proper article on the subject, because you will be that, but if you wish you can put a short note of explanation on the article talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Well; we should only submit articles that are in line with policy. If someone has failed to do that before you, that's of no concern of yours. Pace NYB, but I do not agree that TP notes are necessary- think how many times this actuall happens- even accidentally, where one is not aware of a previous version. Anyway. — fortunavelut luna 14:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that a talkpage note is not at all necessary; was merely noting that it is permissible if desired. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course, thanks. I also agree there's no harm in it whatsoever, and it's to be praised as an example of how occasionally editors can go beyond the spirit of collegiality, and by doing so, make up a little ground for those who do not :) — fortunavelut luna 16:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Put the Deletions in the Template:Article history on the talk page, then anyone can see the history. - X201 (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
More eyes as requested :P Create the new version and template the talk as suggested by X201. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Per FIM and NYB, this is fine. Talk page suggestions by NYB/X201/FT are not harmful, but not needed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all, I truly appreciate everyone's perspective. I have recreated the article. I will do as X201 suggests, although unfortunately it appears that "Create" is not one of the valid parameters, so that will require a separate note. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Mattb2314 edits to pulmonary hypertension[edit]

Pinging those who might have interests in this: @Ozzie10aaaa: and @Doc James:

An editor, Mattb2314 has been continuously making heavy changes to the pulmonary hypertension page. As one who is not a member of WikiProject Medicine, I just noticed the very huge edit on RC patrol, and found out that the editor has had a history of edits on the page which have caused contention (in that case from Ozzie10aaaa). This user has warned Mattb2314 before about large, breaking edits [13] but I see no response, no discussion at all. Another 'silent' editor.

Hopefully something can be done here. I reverted the edits in question, FYI. Thanks, My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 14:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Found this. Will warn about COI/PAID. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 14:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
well I was going to respond to the question of their edits(they added 73 edits/36,000 bytes[14]...and were reverted 6 times by four different editors[15]), however apparently COI has been found[16]...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
They are with PHA Europe. Happy to have them join us. The issue is more regarding WP:MEDMOS, WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDHOW. Well they have been provided these details they are not responsive :-( Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I've also warned for edit warring. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doc James and Ozzie10aaaa, sorry for my late reply. I wasn´t aware of the impact of my changes. I will inform you if I will do any further ones. Thank you for your feedback!

Phone number spam (Previous title: Anyone want to help roll back vandalism?)[edit]

Hi. User:185.212.169.218 has been adding the same phone number to a large number of articles about universities. I've reverted some but have to go do other stuff tonight. Does anyone have time to revert this IP's other contributions? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

This also needs a block as the spree is ongoing. I've reported at AIV. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Yikes. I'll revert it whenever I see it. RC is moving a bit too quickly for my comfort, right now. --a u t a c o i d (stalk) 06:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
User:185.212.169.201 seems to be related, if not the same person. Reverting their changes. --a u t a c o i d (stalk) 06:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)