Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive964

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

Noticeboard archives


User:KolbertBot is malfunctioning[edit]

Bot seems to be working fine. Nobody else has said they got spam emails, including me. (non-admin closure)MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 16:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

spam emailing — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Checked a few edits, not seeing any issues in them. Are you saying the bot is sending spam emails? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this a violation of WP:POLEMIC?[edit]

There is nothing for administrators to do here now that the policy has been clarified. The longer this stays open, the more likely this discussion veers into accusations, etc. Kudpung's and Doug's analyses were accurate and to the point. If there needs to be further discussion of the policy a better venue is Wikipedia talk:User pages. Malinaccier (talk) 19:02, 3 September 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 note the difference between asking the question "Is this a violation of WP:POLEMIC?" and making the accusation "This a violation of WP:POLEMIC." I find it annoying when someone assumes that a good-faith question is actually a veiled accusation. I am asking because I don't know the answer.)

The material in question is at User:Malik Shabazz, in the section titled "Don't Give HBO's Confederate the Benefit of the Doubt". --Guy Macon (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that I did post a notification as required, but it was reverted with an inaccurate edit comment.[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree, but for my own education and to allow me to better understand what is and what is not a violation, is it also a violation of POLEMIC? For example, it seems to me that the "Inspiring Quotes" section on the same page lacks even a hint of polemicism, but I am not so sure about the link titled to "Does This Flag Make You Flinch?" I am hoping for some guidance on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I can't see a violation of WP:POLEMIC. It seems a considered review of a forthcoming tv show, and although it makes social and political points, I don't see it as "Very divisive or offensive material" with an emphasis on "very". It may offend some people but then many, many things offend a minority of people. It's skeptical and anti-racist, but those are not bad things. It isn't "far-left" or "far-right". However, it's far too many words copied from a copyright source and needs to be trimmed. Doug Weller talk 12:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks! It appears that he he edited it it in response to this report.[2] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • As I said, "I find it annoying when someone assumes that a good-faith question is actually a veiled accusation. I am asking because I don't know the answer." You have successfully annoyed me by assuming that my question was in bad faith (it wasn't.) I am further annoyed by your ham-fisted attempt to read my mind (I neither like or dislike the material; I just wanted to clarify the policy). If I wanted him to change or delete the material I would have asked him to do that. Please stop putting words in my mouth. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 3 September 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.

Bizarre vandalism from a 30/500 user[edit]

Blocked for 72 hours as a preventative measure. When folks have reasonable concerns about your editing, it is expected that you will respond to them or, at the very least, fix the problem. Deleting those messages and doing nothing is disruptive. Janus is encouraged to communicate with other editors regarding these concerns. If this behavior continues after the block expires, I believe an indefinite block is appropriate. I JethroBT drop me a line 19:21, 3 September 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.

Had to bring this up here as no one seems to have taken notice on this guy. I am talking about Janus Nuelizson S. Azucena, who has been on Wikipedia for at least two years, yet his contributions consist of bizarre vandalism adding implausible "See also" links to unrelated articles, exhibit A being this edit on a Marian image, linking an article for a Pentecostal church to it for whatever reason. Same goes for this edit on Shopkins. The user apparently admits that he has a condition, but while he may have meant well his behaviour is causing nothing but disruption to the project. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean about having a condition? Tornado chaser (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
He mentioned it on his user page, i.e. a "special child". Blake Gripling (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
how does this mean he has a condition? Tornado chaser (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh for heaven's sake, that's some religious reference or something. Let's get off that particular aspect before more silly things are said. I do believe there may be a CIR English-competency problem. EEng 02:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe some weird obsession with his interests in toys, professional wrestling/MMA or something being juxtaposed to religion for no plausible reason. I also forgot to mention that a "special child" in Filipino parlance refers to special needs people, i.e. a politically-correct term in place of the now-offensive terms being formerly used for them. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The assertion that he has a condition is a total jump to conclusions, his talk page is completely indecipherable, which I do think may be a sign of CIR issues. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Well it wasn't my intention to label him or anything, it's that I was more or less basing from previous experience as I've encountered similar users before. I initially assumed good faith as what was suggested in his user page (since I wouldn't want to end up insulting or upsetting him or his relatives anyway) but his long-term pattern of disruption definitely needs to be addressed, once I found out that even articles on Marian images and other Christianity-related stuff are being (unwittingly) vandalised. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Yes, please, comment on Blake Gripling's report about Janus Nuelizson S. Azucena's edits, which do seem problematic at times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The only issue I'm seeing here is adding a link to his church to a few pages. It seems all his edits are being reverted, but I'm not sure if all of them merit reversion. All warnings issued were made after the user's final edit for that same day, indicating to me that the warnings issued may not even merit a noticeboard discussion in the first place. Has the user ever been warned about this prior to the last 24 hours? Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 03:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Some of them have been outright inexplicable, particularly linking Yey! to an unrelated Christian network, or the aforementioned Shopkins edit. The problem here is he's been doing this wholesale, devoid of explanation or summaries, and thus is hard to track down one by one. He has also been violating MOS:NOTSEEALSO and a few other policies from what I can tell as well. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Without diff links to both the alleged vandalism and the warnings, it's hard to scour these edits and make any judgment. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 03:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
It's on my original message. That being said I am leaving this up to you to decide. The user doesn't seem to be cooperative, and at most has been blanking out warning messages meant for him to refrain from making further vandalism. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I've left a message on their talk page [3] advising them to come here and participate in the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @WayKurat: as I bet he might be familiar with this guy, considering his history of reverting and dealing with problem users editing Philippines-related articles. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Well, your message didn't work either, and neither did my notices. He simply blanks it and goes on without any care given. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I've taken another stab at it, posting a new message that reiterated the essence of the previous one. If the editor refuses to discuss or collaborate, I see no other option than an indef block, although I wouldn't be adverse to a shorter attention-getting block (even though these have fallen out of fashion these days). Let's see how things develop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Nope, still no dice with this guy. He apparently doesn't like to play ball with us. *rolls eyes* Blake Gripling (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
So I see, he deleted my second message one minute after I posted it. Ah well, he can hardly claim now not to have been warned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


Because of his unwillingness or inability to participate in discussions on his talk page when concerns are raised there about his editing, and because of the odd, unexplained, and irrelevant nature of many of his edits, and, in addition, his apparent refusal to take part in this discussion to explain or justify his editing, User:Janus Nuelizson S. Azucena should be blocked from editing for a time to be determined by the blocking admin, either to encourage him to take seriously the need to collaborate and discuss with his fellow editors (a short block), or to protect Wikipedia from his quasi-vandalism (a long or indefinite block).

  • Support - as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Considering his long-term pattern of subtle or quasi-vandalism (five years at most) and how administrators seem to have overlooked him, I'd say a disciplinary action is necessary. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support CIR block, this is a collaborative project. jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: For someone who never responds to attempts to discuss his behavior, he sure is quick about deleting attempts to discuss his behavior.[4][5][6][7][8] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and recommend an indefinite block. These edits are not constructive and the lack of communication does not give me hope for change. If the user requests an earnest unblock, I would entertain this and give a second chance. Malinaccier (talk) 18:26, 3 September 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.

TP access needs revoking...[edit]

(non-admin closure) Never mind... Already done. Kleuske (talk) 23:44, 4 September 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.

Wikipornialover (talk · contribs) (blocked indef) is being obnoxious. Can a friendly admin please set them straight? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 23:41, 4 September 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.

Persistent BLP Blake[edit]

I'm not quite sure what's going on with this BLP or who should be held responsible if anyone, but the disruption is off the charts and we need some relief. I will list the diffs, and hopefully an admin or editor who has more experience with this sort of thing than I can advise as to the best course of action.

It was determined that Jameson Blake aka Jameson Andrew Gibson Blake did not meet the requirements for Wikipedia:Notability (person) and the result of the 2nd AfD was a redirect to the program they appeared in. The reason I'm listing all the diffs is to demonstrate the disruption caused by over this one BLP. I did not include all of the user names or IP #s with each diff but I did include some. I did post notification of this discussion on the respective TPs (where I could, but not going back in time too far):

Thank you Atsme📞📧 17:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The following are wp:SPAs, having only edited Jameson Blake article and info:

Jim1138 (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: I've gone ahead and edit protected the redirect page for a period of two days. Maybe a little overkill, but that should address some of the disruptive activity. I JethroBT drop me a line 23:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Systematic spam linking on articles of Slovakian sportspeople and clubs[edit]

Well, this is extraordinary… Svk fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), a user predominantly editing articles on Slovakian sportspeople and clubs has been inserting dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds of spam links. Specifically, he is using a porn site as a reference. This has been going on at least since June (edit from June), perhaps longer (?). It appears the user in question has received warnings for unsourced additions. It does not seem, however, that anyone has reported this systematic spam linking. More examples: 1, 2, 3. I've been trying to go about removing them but there are far too many. Furthermore, most recently the user tried to create a Wikipedia article for the porn site. Regards, (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, those cites are wildly inappropriate. I've gone through and removed them all. I don't know why the user would do that unless they had an interest in bringing in traffic to the site. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe take this to a technical team also. From looking at your links it seems that this may be a bot that creates links by mimicking the last few words of a sentence. If so, and if released into the wild, that type of bot could tie advertising into reference links on any page at any time, and would need a counter-bot to find it. Make sense? I'm code-illiterate, so taking a guess here. Have to assume good faith, as, in taking a quick look at some of the history, the editor seems quite productive. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The site needs to be added to the blacklist. Blackmane (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Reported to WP Spam. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Brief comment - DailyXvideos seems to be acting as a sporting news aggregator - sourcing content from various sites and translating to English, sometimes combining (e.g. a transfer-list for the season). The text content itself contains actual news. Now, I don't believe anyone believes people who say they buy Playboy magazine for the articles, but it is possible to source on-line for a source in English and make a mistake (I presume this source fails due to lack of an editorial board, for instance) - but this is not straight up porn (though it is there on the side and top). It is quite obvious the site is doing this to generate traffic (as the sporting news is not accessible in any reasonable way other than searching on-site or externally (google)), but this doesn't mean the editor has the same goal as the site.Icewhiz (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I've raised it on the blacklist [9]. Blackmane (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I used this site ( as source, because it provide slovak sport news in english, all others sites provides news only in Slovak, and I thought that in EN version of wikipedia would be better using english sources... Svk_fan (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Then maybe 'assume good faith' worked well in this instance. Thanks for the reasonable explanation Svk_fan (although from the looks of it the site may not be allowed as a source anymore?). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Good question, please somebody provide clarification if it´s mentiond site allowed as source or not. I can post sources in Slovak, but for me it doesn´t make sense (in EN version). So my quesion: Is website for men (sport articles and porn) in English better source as sport site in local language (slovak in this case), or not? Thanks Svk_fan (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2017 (CET)
Should probably be discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You can use Slovak sources. This particular source - does not seem to qualify as WP:RS (not because of the porn, because these news items don't seem accessible from the top of the site and because it doesn't seem there is an editorial board or editorial oversight (or if there is - it isn't stated anywhere obvious) - which would make the site fail as a source even prior to checking its reputation, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
OK but on every post there is orginal source/sources in Slovak language, moreover many Slovak sites used as source doesn´t have editional board (they only bring news from press agencies)[1], so it´s the same :) Svk_fan (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2017 (CET)


Hi again, so is this source allowed or not? Svk_fan (talk) 9:34, 31 August 2017 (CET)
No, it should not be used at all. Fram (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record... A quick google search gave me multiple hits to English language websites that have news and stats for Slovakian sports. So the idea that we have to use this one (and turn a blind eye to the porn) simply does not hold water. I would say there is no need to ever use it. Blueboar (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory's behavior at AfDs (again)[edit]

I don't see that there's anything for admins to do here. E.M. Gregory (and anyone else for that matter) - don't accuse people of bludgeoning when they're clearly not. Sport and Politics (and anyone else for that matter) - please don't add canvassing templates to AfDs where canvassing is not occurring. Also, Unscintillating's comment about unnecessarily verbose AfD nominations is on point - if you're nominating an article, a concise explanation of why the article fails Wikipedia policy is enough. Hopefully that clears that up. Black Kite (talk) 13:45, 3 September 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.

It seems that E.M.Gregory, just cannot help themselves. A previous and very lengthy discussion was had, here regarding their behaviour. The bahaviour is still continuing in the same fashion unabated. There needs to be some form of control on this behaviour. The promise, of I understand and won't do it again has not worked. More formal action is required.

Here are some of the reasons why I an unfortunately raising this issue again so shortly after it was recently closed. [10], [11] These two are a reptition of the same point on two different AfD's, which would be better suited to a user talk page. [12] This is a purely personal comment which should be on a user talk page. [13], [14] Here are accusations of bludgeon coming from E.M. Gregory which is ironic.

There is also a general trend to respond on AfD's multiple multiple times, and to every single comment which is disagreed with. This is making those AfD's once again very hard to follow, and very crowded. This is the exact behaviour which was raised previously as the of concern, and it is still continuing unabated. Sport and politics (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Whilst E.M. Gregory's use of BLUDGEON on those discussions after a single comment is utterly ridiculous, I also have to ask why you are adding the {{notavote}} template to these AfDs. As EMG says, these are normally used where canvassing or off-wiki meatpuppetry are an issue, which they're not - at present - on those AfDs, as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
There appears to be a missing here.I am happy to discuss things with E.M. Gregory in an appropriate place, such as my user talk page. I am happy to do so with this point. It appears as if there is little foresight to make comments in the correct place. Personal comments are for personal user talk pages, not the general AfD discussion. If there is a discussion and agreement on the appropriateness of the inclusion of this template on a personal user talk page, that is better than having that discussion on the AfD. It also seems as if there is a latching on by E.M. Gregory to anything they disagree with, and then sprinting to make it a big issue. When simply talking in the appropriate place is better. Posting the same comments verbatim on multiple AfD's over the template seems to me to be less about the use of the template itself, and more about simply making noise. There are appropriate places to have discussions. These places are simply not sough by E.M. Gregory. I am happy to discuss this on my user talk page or on the user talk page of E.M. Gregory. Here and the AfD's are not the place to be having that discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (e/c) I don't see a problem with the first two diffs – it's a valid question to ask and it's strange that an answer hasn't been given. Number 57 12:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
It is the wrong place to be making the comments, the comments should be made on user talk pages, and not spread out over multiple AfD's verbatim. Doing so does not demonstrate a willingness to address the issue at hand, and is more about making noise. If a specific user is doing something which is disagreed with or to be challenged, it is better to address it with them directly, than by posting the same question on multiple AfD's. That is not going to resolve the issue, it is simply going to cause unnecessary duplication. Sport and politics (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • When I see someone accused of bludgeoning AfDs, I expect to go to his contribution history and see lots of edits to a single AfD, not one or two. And the "purely personal comment which should be on a user talk page" is nothing of the sort. It looks to me like E.M. Gregory has taken the previous ANI discussion to heart and is editing productively. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I am not accusing them of bludgeoning, they accused me of it. The comments are though getting very volumous very quickly over numerous AfD's. Sport and politics (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment  First of all, note that I supported the viewpoint of User:Sport and politics at the recent hearing regarding E.M.Gregory.  However, the current situation is considerably different.  Unless this discussion moves to discussing the clogging of AfD with ill-considered but verbose AfD event nominations by User:Sport and politics, some posted in as little as 17 seconds, this discussion can be closed.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
As little as 17 seconds, misses the fact that the issues are created at similar times using show preview, and doing multiple nominations and using show preview, then saving when all of the editing is finished is standard editing practice. it is not practical to say oh it only took x seconds, that misses how an AfD could have been created. That is though beside the point. What does it matter when a save button is pressed, as opposed to a show preview button? Sport and politics (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

It appears as if there is a bespoke and unbelievable missing of the point of this referral. It seems that the issues are not willing to be engaged with. I am therefore required to withdraw this referral, as users do not seem to be getting the point here. It is pointless continuing with this, when there is now a minutiae discussion of when a Show Preview or a Save Changes button is pressed. This is a complete and total misunderstanding of the show preview function. As a result it is just a focusing on something which is a complete and utter misunderstanding of how previews work. I do not see what 17 seconds is supposed to be a comment on.

In Summary referral withdrawn. --Sport and politics (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

comment - just a comment, Sport and politics: you might want to think about the practices that lead you to making multiple AfD nominations that repeat an inappropriate template, before you criticize repeated objections to that template use (one per AfD nom) as "bludgeoning". Just a thought. Also, the whole philosophy of ANI is that the referrer does not get to define "the point" of the referral, q.v. WP:BOOMERANG.Newimpartial (talk) 13:11, 3 September 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.

Lots of silly new pages[edit]

Looks like all the pages have been deleted, thanks to everyone who helped out. Simplexity22 (talk) 05:28, 4 September 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.

Could an admin please take a look through the new-page feed? There seems to be a mass-vandalism attack, or something, going on. Simplexity22 (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it is getting crazy-I have marked some myself, take it you have also. Might need to see these guys/girls blocked also. Wgolf (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Also see those new accounts who edited MCC, pretty sure these are related. Already opened an SPI case but still need to add the new page spam accounts. -★- PlyrStar93. Message me. 🖉 04:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Several other pages have been edited as well by them-one guy edited NCC a couple times. Wgolf (talk) 04:59, 4 September 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: on Liberal Democrats and others.[edit]

Resolved, nac SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appears to be same person adding unsourced changes as (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - see entry above. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Also blocked, and I've semi-protected the main articles for a while this time. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Unite the Right rally[edit]

Added sanctions notice. GABgab 20:15, 4 September 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.

Not an "incident" per se, but nevertheless I'm requesting that an administrator please add this page to their watch list, or preferably just slap the 1933 politics sanctions on the damn thing. Seems anything related to the alt-right or white nationalists deserves this sanction. Since I don't watch this page, ping me if you want a response. I'll show myself the door. That man from Nantucket (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. This article is pretty unambiguously related to post-1933 US politics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I keep thinking I should do it but forget. I'm easily distracted. :) I can't do it from my tablet though, hopefully someone will do it before I get back to my PC. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@That man from Nantucket, MjolnirPants, and Doug Weller:  Done ([15]). GABgab 20:15, 4 September 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.

Edit-warring to insert violations of BLP, V, and NPOV[edit]

An editor, Spacecowboy420, has appeared on the Manny Pacquiao page, inserting material that violates BLP, V, and NPOV, and edit-warring to keep it in; and is disruptive all round. To show why their edits are in violation of policy, I'll have to describe the content of those edits. They have been reverted multiple times by different editors.[16] [17]

  • Editors inserts into the lead [18]: "Former two-weight world champion Paulie Malignaggi has consistently expressed his opinion that Pacquaio has used PEDs, noting that Pacquiao's run of dominant performances and knockouts stopped after Floyd Mayweather Jr accused Pacquaio of using PEDs." This is heavily undue for the lead, for one person's allegations to be inserted into the lead. Some of the sources are also questionable. The editor also uses the edit summary, "considering the huge amount of sources and content later in the article, this is highly relevant and worthy of the lede" - the reality is that the "steroid allegations" part takes up one paragraph, in a huge article, so is a false claim and disruptive behaviour.

This edit [19]:

  • Editor inserts: "At the peak of his career until 2012, Pacquiao was considered one of the greatest professional boxers of all time". This was based on a source published in 2010, whereas the added content discusses events at least until 2012 (and beyond really, because to know someone reached a peak at a certain time, there needs to be time afterwards for a decline). The editor added a source to support claims that happened after the publication date. Needless to say, this addition clearly fails WP:V.
  • Editor inserts into the lead: "however, following several defeats between 2012 and 2017, his contemporary status has been subject to debate." Among other things, this uses this source [20]. What makes this a reliable source? From that website:[21] is a boxing fans news blog and forum, where you can get the latest boxing news updates and share your thoughts on sport of boxing. We allow fans to get involved and have their opinions heard by giving them the opportunity voice their views through originally written articles.

This nowboxing is a website that anyone can contribute to; it appears to be a self-published group blog, and is clearly no way a reliable source. To use such a source to make claims about the reputation of a living person is a clear violation of WP:BLP.

  • Editor inserts into the lead [22]: "While in 2017 Jorge Conejo of Now Boxing stated "his best days are long behind him", "Evidence of his decline showed drastically against young unbeaten Australian slugger Jeff Horn"." Editor inserts into the lead the opinion of one contributor in 2017, making claims about the reputation of a living person, which was published in an unreliable source - BLP violation.
  • Again regarding "however, following several defeats between 2012 and 2017, his contemporary status has been subject to debate", this source is used: [23]. This is a sourced published in 2011, used to make claims about events happening in 2012-2017. Again, this is a violation of verifiability.
  • Editor claims they have consensus when it appears consensus is against them - misleading behaviour that is disruptive
  • Editor deleted "In 2016, Pacquiao was ranked number 2 on ESPN's list of top pound-for-pound boxers of the past 25 years". This is an actual ranking by a reputable outlet, and is precise the kind of source we need if we are to discuss a boxer's 'greatness'. For the editor to delete it, tells me they have no interest in developing a proper article.

Those are the main type of edits the editor has made on this article. I've tried my best to discuss with the editor, but they have avoided discussing those edits, and they have instead talked about side issues. It's abundantly clear that the editor is here to push an agenda on that article, and isn't afraid to edit-war and violate policy to do so. I only know the editor from the Pacquiao article, but a quick glance at their other edits tells me the pattern is there too. HampsteadLord (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The related article Boxing career of Manny Pacquiao has also been the location of this dispute. A report on AN3 was considered a bad faith report by a known sockpuppet with the history of that page showing 7 reverts within 24 hours. @Spacecowboy420: was reverting a sock of an indeff'ed user so these reverts fall within 3-revert exception #3. However, the information being added has the same issues identified above. For one editor violating WP:SOCK and WP:NPA to be reverting another possibly violating WP:BLP obviously greatly clouds the issue but it does not justify adding poorly-sourced information to a BLP. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Rapid-fire vandalism apparently on proxies[edit]

A person appears to be using open proxies to rapidly vandalize numerous times. Some of the IPs include:

Edit summaries are often "copyedit", "minor fixes", "fixed typo", "fixed grammar"
All have been blocked. Jim1138 (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Also (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) DuncanHill (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Would it be better to just let the anon vandalize on one IP? Then he can be easily reverted. Jim1138 (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

No, because we can't guarantee you will be around to instantly revert them every time without anyone ever loading up an article in a vandalised state. You have to block to nip the problem in the bud, so to speak. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not such a bad approach really. The only we're going to stop this vandal is through boredom. So the choice is whether to constantly undo every edit stemming from one IP, or rely on finding all the other IPs they are using. And if they're more dispersed there more chance that vandalism will remain. Ultimately though, I think the easiest way to make them bored is by reducing the pool of available IPs, even if it's going to take a lot. Speaking of which, having just blocked the last 40 or so IPs, I'm now going to take a break. Someone else can track them down. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
That's a heck of a range of IPs - how on earth can we get a long-term solution for this lot? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
You can't. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Just waiting for the vandals to change IPs with every edit or so. Jim1138 (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Aye, these are VPN Gate proxies - they are usually quite dynamic and there's quite a few of them. A long term solution is to find a bot or another way to scrape the IPs so they can be blocked. Their availability should get diluted if we block enough of them. This user is operating off recent changes, so if you're reverting them please also check the prior changes. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I did mass-rollbacks on many Jim1138 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

As a vague heuristic to discuss, does anyone know what proportion of anonymous edits with canned edit summaries and more than 500 bytes of change (in either direction) are good faith? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a good feed, every IP on this list has been recently blocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not entirely comprehensive. Special:Contributions/ shows some of the non-canned summaries which are being used. So this feed should show them all. They're quite easy to spot. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's some more of them:

I was at wp-en IRC reporting some of these with some help from Jon Kolbert. k6ka and TNT were very helpful in stopping them before Zzuzz took over and did an impressive amount of cleanup - TNT also created a test edit filter here: Special:AbuseFilter/1 (the recent few IP's in the log are relevant here) and then moved it to Special:AbuseFilter/684. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 13:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a dedicated filter at Special:AbuseFilter/819 that we've used in the past. I've enabled that and disbaled the temporary one. Also, you should know they are definitely reading what you're saying here. MusikAnimal talk 14:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
A "virtual reality" mode should be setup where a vandal such as this can be "VR blocked". Their edits would appear to be made, but unknown to the vandal, they would not be. Then the vandal would happily be working away without any damage on Wikipedia. One option might be as simple as their edit appears to be saved, although this one was occasionally reverting their own edits. Another that their edit being only visible to the vandal for a period of time minutes to hours. This would prevent the vandal from easily checking; one could use a different browser to watch. Another might be that the edit is automatically reverted after a short period of time. It would get complicated for a sophisticated vandal. Jim1138 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note: I've taken the liberty to merge the two reports, for convenience. GABgab 20:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm noticing an odd pattern of vandalism with (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS): all use three-character edit summaries but none seem to evince a single pattern of vandalism; it's all over the place. Admins have been blocking these but I'm wondering if some sort of stronger response is called for. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

here is another example. A completely innocuous minor comment on a T/P of a (relatively) obscure article reverted with a strange edit summary. Irondome (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: Some more information on this is right here on ANI: just scroll up till you see the section titled "Rapid-fire vandalism apparently on proxies". That should give you some context as to what's going on. The vandalbot has already done hundreds if not thousands of edits. If you notice a similar pattern (recurring/strange edit summaries and rapid reversion of recent edits) on recent changes, rollback all of their edits and report to AIV. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 05:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
This is surely someone using proxies and these should be blocked for a year on sight (in fact, Zzuuzz has blocked two of them for one year, the other is blocked only for 48 hours). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I've reblocked the third IP for one year as a proxy. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the "derp vandal". Someone has been running a vandalbot for days on end. It reverts recent changes at random. The IP's do seem to be proxies. Sro23 (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
All I've seen are undo-s of recent changes, e.g. this to RFA immediately succeeded by this to an article. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Curious if could be this vandal as well. Materialscientist blocked for a month as LTA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Almost certainly is. The "derp vandal" did have an "edit summary-less" phase and looking through my contribs, it was on 31st August. There is no other way the IP could've undone an edit less than a minute after it was made without going through recent changes and that too, on such random pages. And that is precisly the MO of the "derp vandal". Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 06:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The things that turn some people on! Internet sociopathy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Does this have anything to do with (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs)? GABgab 20:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@GeneralizationsAreBad: Not just anything, but it is exactly that vandal we're talking about - rapidly reverting recent edits and having repeating/random/no edit summaries. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 20:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Propose temporary block from making AfD nominations for Sport and politics[edit]

This is a complete waste of everyone's time. No admin action is going to be taken here, save possibly closing a number of the AfDs that SaP has started early via SNOW. SaP: stop using boilerplate AfD nominations, and concentrate on why those articles are allegedly non-notable; also, nominating articles that are heavily sourced in very reliable international news sources are never going to be deleted, regardless of NOTNEWS. Use WP:BEFORE, or you're wasting your time there. User:XavierItzm - SaP has not accused you of racism, they have merely pointed out your voting pattern on such articles, which indeed is to Keep all of them (including pretty poor rationales like this one). Don't make accusations like that, please. Have a look at User:E.M.Gregory, who whilst he has a similar interest in such articles, is quite prepared to vote to redirect articles if he does not think they are notable. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 4 September 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 series of rapid nominations were created by User:Sports and Politics this weekend by cut-and-paste copying User:TheGracefulSlick's nominating edit at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/June_2017_Champs-Élysées_car_ramming_attack_(2nd_nomination) by User:TheGracefulSlick (an article that itself was kept at AfD just 2 months ago). These articles were created by Sports and Politics with a canvassing template already in place. All of the articles are reliably sourced, several are longstanding articles that have been covered in books and scholarship, and revisited by mainstream media years after they occurred. Some, however, are articles about recent attacks and, as most administrators will already be aware, a shooting war has flared up in recent weeks in which a small number of editors have been actively nominating terrorism-related pages for deletion. One or two of the AfDs created by Sports and Politics are nominations on which reasonable editors might disagree. But as a group they are disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talkcontribs)

  • I iVoted to redirect the 2014 Australian counter-terrorism raids. But the 2017 Bomb plot looks solid, the IEDs were shipped to Australia by ISIS, would-be suicide bomber is under arrest, Lebanese security tipped the Aussies off, one of the IEDs was inside a Barbie doll. A quick WP:BEFORE would have revealed all. Target was one of those immense Etihad flights out of Sydney. Reasonable people can differ on the 2017_Queanbeyan_stabbing_attacks. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • So why isn't that information, which would of course change how people !vote in an AfD, actually in the article? At the moment it reads like a news article saying that someone is suspected of doing something. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Just added it. But I didn't write that article; I discovered it at AfD. I have been working on expanding several of these articles that I did not write, but surely the point here is that Sports and Politics brought the badly-named 2017 Islamic inspired bomb plot on Australian aeroplane without WP:BEFORE (that Barbie doll bomb came up on a quick search).E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I would like to add to the list above the deletion nomination for August 2017 Brussels attack and the deletion nomination for 2017 Buckingham Palace incident. The language on both is copy-paste. On both pages, the nomination proposes the page should be deleted for the following reasons:
    «Simply shouting words does not make someone an extremist. Simply being a member of a religion and a criminal does not make someone a religious extremist. Simply attacking soldiers does not make an incident terrorism. Stating those things equal Radical Islamic Terrorism...».
    The words "extremist", "religious extremist", and "radical islamic terrorism" simply do not exist in either article. I question the WP:NPOV of a nomination which goes into loaded verbiage which is inapplicable to the article itself.
    Additionally, both nominations complain about WP:OR. Is the AfD process the right venue for handling WP:OR issues, or is this an abuse of the process?
    Full disclosure: I have argued for a "keep" on both cases, so I am an interested party. XavierItzm (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I shall only make this simple comment on this discussion. Why has no one attempted to talk on my talk page to me about any of these issues? I have made requests for this to happen with the nominator and this has simply not happened. The nominator wasn't even bothered enough to sign the notice of this discussion my talk page. I find it incredible that simple discussion on user talk pages is an alien concept. The simple question is are user talk page discussions dead? --Sport and politics (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Comment  While I don't support the mass serial nominations, there are other resolutions available; and I don't choose to overlook that E.m.gregory has made a commitment to comment on the contributions not the contributor at a recent ANI discussion, here.  As reported two threads ago, he has twice made accusations of WP:BLUDGEON, [24], [25], which is a tactic I identified at the previous ANI discussion as a tactic used to shut me down at the AfD on WP:Articles for deletion/Teresa May (actress).  I don't think he is getting it.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Can we not make this a list of AfDs we personally disagree with XavierItzm? We get it: you think every incident, proven or otherwise, committed by a certain ethnic group is inherently notable. Those two AfDs, however, are seperate to the template and copy-and-paste Gregory expressed concerns with. More seriously, this ANI has once again displayed Gregory has not learned from the previous case brought here; behavior is still an issue and AfD discussions are a catalyst for it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@User:TheGracefulSlick:Please make no WP:PERSONAL. You offend me by calling me a racist on this edit immediately above. XavierItzm (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't recall calling you a racist. And I thought OR was only limited to articles!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
It is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
«you think every incident, proven or otherwise, committed by a certain ethnic group is inherently notable» is an accusation of racism. Kindly refrain from WP:PERSONAL. XavierItzm (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I apologize XavierItzm, I did not realize referencing your take on notability could possibly be construed as an accusation of racism. Perhaps if I used words like "prejudice", "discrimination", "hatred", or -- I don't know -- "racist" in that diff you provide, it could be considered an actual accusation of racism. Wouldn't you agree?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Sport and politics[edit]

SAP is continuously using bad words in her discussion and is attacking almost everyone who disagrees with her. Check here where she wrote words like 'Load of horse shit' and here where used words like 'salacious' and others after getting the notice. She seems to continue her sprees of nominating terrorism related articles. Greenbörg (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The point trying to be made here is? The Load of horse shit was on my user talk page. You posted a hollow and false accusation, providing no diffs or evidence for it. I am going to call you out on that. If you don't like play somewhere else. It is beginning to feel like I am being trolled over the past couple of days, first E.M Gregory and now this. I hope I am wrong in that feeling but it does feel mighty mighty suspicious. Also sign comments when they are made, and post a courtesy notice to the person being complained about, of the existence of this discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The courtesy notice has now been posted. Sport and politics (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) While personal attacks and incivility are forbidden by policy, naughty words are not. Kleuske (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
This is trawling for issues at its worse. I propose the person who bought this here be given a warning for wasting everyone's time, and process abuse. Sport and politics (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Sport and politics[edit]

Appears to be accidental duplicate post. Alex ShihTalk 11:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sport and politics (talk · contribs) is continuously using bad words in his discussing and is attacking almost everyone who disagrees with him. Check here where he wrote words like 'Load of horse shit' and here where used words like 'salacious' and others after getting the notice. He seems to continue his sprees of nominating terrorism related articles. Greenbörg (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Why has this been posted twice? Sport and politics (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Also avoid incorrect gender pronouns. Do not assume all Wikipedians are male.11:10, 4 September 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:Zoyetu and WP:BLP[edit]

There doesn't seem to be enough recent disruption nor consensus in this survey to suggest that it would be preventative now to implement a block on the editor in question. With that being said, as the final warning issued by SuperMarioMan maintains to be active and relevant, any next edits perceived as disruptive should result in immediate block. The participation in proposal 2 is also less than optimal, but combined with the comments and evidences presented, it should be sufficient to declare that Zoyetu has now been indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to to biographies of living persons based on the consensus of this community discussion. This editing restriction has been logged here. Alex ShihTalk 14:08, 5 September 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 is in response to a ping by Softlavender and follows up a final warning that I issued in February last year.)

WP:BLP requires that the articles to which it applies be written "conservatively" and avoid sensationalism. In nearly two years of editing, Zoyetu (talk · contribs) has repeatedly violated this instruction.

This recent addition to Peter Levy (presenter), now removed, was problematic for obvious reasons: its dependence on primary sources taken out of context plus the use of non-neutral language to cast the subject of the article in a negative light. Zoyetu even went so far as to upload a screenshot of a deleted Tweet as a "reference".

This isn't an isolated case. Zoyetu first came to my attention in 2015 through their activity on the Chuckle Brothers article, when they made poorly-sourced and opinionated edits like this, this and (ridiculously) this. Despite being informed of the requirements for WP:BLP not long after they started editing ([26]; [27]), from their behaviour on the Levy article it's clear that Zoyetu still doesn't understand even the basics of this policy.

What's the solution? Having reverted this user I could be considered involved and am therefore reluctant to impose a block. What would others say to an indefinite topic ban from all BLPs? SuperMarioManTalk 21:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I am writing in response to accusations made by both Softlavender (talk · contribs) and SuperMarioMan (talk · contribs) that I have violated the rules with regards to some of my edits.
Firstly, I would like to apologise for these and address the points (and references) made by SuperMarioMan regarding some of my earlier edits to the Chuckle Brothers page. When these edits were first made in late-2015, I was new to Wikipedia and therefore I was unaware of the rules in place. I appreciate that some of the edits that I had made could be considered as sensationalist, and I have since recognised this. I was unaware as to which types of media sources would be considered acceptable (i.e. tabloid, broadsheet, etc.) and I have since made edits to the same page which have been accepted with no issue. I am working on improving the way in which I edit pages and since late-2015 I have created and edited a number of Wikipedia pages that I believe have benefited the website as a whole.
Regarding this latest issue relating to the Peter Levy page, I appreciate that the aforementioned paragraph could be conisdered controversial, however I was unaware that "Tweets" could not be used as the sole reference within articles, particularly when the Tweets in question were posted by an account owned by the individual which the page is about. Furthermore, prior to posting the Tweet and editing the article, I had made great efforts to seek the advice of a number of Administrators (see: here and here) about whether the referencing, which I appreciate was somewhat unorthodox, would be accepted. The advice I received however was rather unclear on the matter and as such I was unsure as to how to proceed. Looking back, I recognise that I should not have posted the paragraph in question, however at the time I felt that any edit that I would potentially make could easily be reverted and therefore for this reason I decided to post the paragraph in question. Admittedly I had neglected to consult the relevant page referenced by Softlavender prior to posting the edit to the page, which I recognise was lax of me. It certainly was not my intention to cause any offence or problems, and had I of known that posting this would have done I would obviously have not have done so.
There are potentially other reasons why I feel that a block should not be imposed on my person, however I am not prepared to go into these on a public forum. If you wish to discuss this privately, I would be happy to do so.
Thank you for your understanding.
--Zoyetu (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Private evidence in this case would not be applicable. I suggest you present all evidence publicly. --Tarage (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that Zoyetu's knowledge of our general sourcing standards, especially in regard to BLPs, leaves a lot to be desired. Here are some other examples that I found among their recent edits (I have since reverted):
They have also demonstrated a clear agenda – apparently motivated by what they perceive to be in the "public interest" – in edits such as [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] (see the edit summary) and [36] (again, see the summary).
This behaviour spans nearly two years. SuperMarioManTalk 11:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
SuperMarioMan (talk · contribs) I would like to address the 'contributions' that you have outlined one by one. With regards to the minor television appearances by both Damon Hill and Graham Hill, you suggest that the BBC Genome is a user-edited website, however I would argue that it is a bit more than that. According to the website, it contains the BBC listings information which the BBC printed in Radio Times between 1923 and 2009. See here. Again, regarding the Patton Brothers page, I accept your point about using YouTube as a reference, however I did this as I could not find a proper reference (due to the age of the material) but I wanted to be sure that the information could be included. I can also confirm that the Erik Ramsey listed on that webpage and the one listed on the website are the same individuals (here's another website showing the same individual), however as I have already suggested I feel as though I am being unfairly targetted by users who clearly have a vendetta against me, so I doubt what I say will be considered f