Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive970

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Another voice required[edit]

Greetings, I'm running into a bit of a dispute with an editor, Macularcarotenoids, related to this edit and my subsequent revert. The editor has a conflict of interest, as explained on her talk page. If anyone wants to give us a hand, the relevant section is here. Thanks! My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 15:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, just to confirm there is no conflict of interest. These two new studies have just been published relating to MZ and I wanted to add the information to the MZ page. I would like to know why it has been taken down. Macularcarotenoids (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not the decision is made to keep the edits in question (and given how they are primary sources, I doubt they should be included until there is secondary source commentary on them), your talkpage reveals that you clearly have a conflict of interest. Grandpallama (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The cite I just looked at has a DOI 10.4172, which is OMICS, possibly the most notorious publisher of junk predatory open access journals on the planet. That qualifies for a pretty solid "hell no". Guy (Help!) 19:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I saw something in the page history that might have been you, or someone else who removed stuff cited by an OMICS journal some time ago. @Macularcarotenoids: These sources are never acceptable, and should never be used, I would call them worse than WP:DAILYMAIL level. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 19:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
This gave me a good giggle. "Oh, I can assure you that there's no conflict of interest here. If anything it ties in nicely with the work my colleagues and I are doing." Face-grin.svg All joking aside, in case there's any confusion, Macularcarotenoids, when we talk about a conflict of interest at Wikipedia we mean in the interest of impartiality. You really should read that article. nagualdesign 20:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Chas. Caltrop still making edits that other editors have to revert or clean up.[edit]

So I recently tried to bring attention to the long term edit history and behavioural issues (WP:CIVIL, WP:TPG and WP:CONSENSUS) around one Chas. Caltrop (talk). In the ensuing discussion 3 other editors came forwards unprompted with complaints about this user. No admins commented on the situation, and no administrative actions were taken (nerry a warning).

I'd just like to point out that Chas is still making edits that are regularly reverted (Diff 1, Diff 2) by editors who have tried to communicate with Chas - but been met with insult and derision ( talk:Chas._Caltrop#Weasel_Words, talk:Chas._Caltrop#Sentences) (there you'll find separate editors who have not yet commented on these discussions). This course is not the first time someone has tried to highlight this user's behaviour.

Am I to understand that those who pass themselves off as Copy Editors are above the requirements of politeness for Wikipedians - even though their edits generally have to be reverted, cleaned up by others, or are unconstructive/tendentious/damaging to Wikipedia as a whole? Perhaps I'll do some sloppy, politically biased copy editing of my own. I'll make sure all my edit summaries read "CE, completed sentence"; as it seems to provide impunity as an editor regardless of how poorly the end result is. If the goal of administration is to ensure Wikipedia is kept to a high standard, then every now and then difficult to interpret, borderline cases such as this will occur; but they do still need to be actionable (for the sake of the community, and for other editors to feel they've been heard). I understand that this is not a particularly thankful task, and that the violations aren't a particularly obvious breaking of the rules - but it is an ongoing issue and it is damaging (at the very least time wasting)... and the more it is ongoing, the more damage is manifest. Does anyone want to try to bring some deft sanity to these discussions? To at least make this feel like a community, rather than a bunch of peasants yelling at an ivory tower. --Jobrot (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: The key to success on ANI is to make the clearest of points, as thoroughly as is necessary, with the least amount of words, including a fully adequate number of WP:DIFFs with brief explanations. You failed to do that the first time, and you've failed even worse now. No one wants to read your whining and sarcasm, and no one wants to take the trouble to figure out what you are talking about, especially when you've presented so very little evidence. What you need to do is immediately and clearly make your case and then stop typing. Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
SO help me do that! Meanwhile Chas continues to make WP:TEND edits that require reversion: [Diff 3] They are WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons. I don't know how much clearer I can make that. This user is doing this accross multiple pages (which I've linked to the edit histories of, and now made two AN/I posts about - and other users have also made complaints and had similar experiences with this user). --Jobrot (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: The immediate issue here would appear to be Chas. Caltrop's edit warring at Dunning–Kruger effect. As visible from the article's revision history, Chas. Caltrop made an edit there that another editor reverted, then repeated essentially the same edit, and had it reverted again by another user. I can confirm that this is rather typical behavior for Chas. Caltrop, which appears to be what Jobrot is complaining about. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Akocsg: Ethnic/nationalistic POV pushing, edit warring and IP-hopping[edit]

This user removes the contents which he does not like and replace them with his own personal opinions. He always uses misleading and false edit summaries.

  • I mention some of his edits for the comparison:
    • WP:BATTLEGROUND and misrepresentation of sources[2][3]
    • Removing sourced text and replace it with his own POV[4]
    • POV and labeling his edit as minor[5][6]
    • Removing any non-Turkic info which are based on the sources[7][8][9]
    • Disruptive edits like[10]
  • The recent issues:
    • Ashina Removed sourced content of article by providing a misleading edit summary,[11] then started edit warring and inserted his personal opinions.[12][13][14]. Then switched to IP-hopping.[15][16] That IP-range is from Germany and since this user was active on German Wikipedia, then I'm sure it's him. IP's edit pattern and edit summaries matches with him too. IP targeted related articles[17][18][19][20][21][22] and finally wrote a personal attack on my talk page.[23]
    • Baghatur Repeated his old way: Removed the content which he does not like and replaced it with a random non-English citation.[24] Then after 2 month, he repeated it again (non-English sources).[25] And this one.[26]

It's a nationalistic mission/quest by him on English Wikipedia just like German Wiki. Is it necessary to provide more evidences? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I would first like to state how surprised and astonished I am by this deceptive behaviour of this user. None of his accusations are true whatsoever. If you check his recent repeated edit diff in the article Baghatur you can see how he simply deleted a statement which was provided with three different academic sources. They simply got deleted by him with the excuse that they are not English and hence not reliable! That's cherry-picking. And not constructive behaviour at all.

The very same case can be seen in the article Ashina, where again a poorly written and unsourced passage was improved and corrected by me backed with sources. He simply reverted them all with the accuse that it's POV, which is the main accusation based on the same examples here! The result was that my objection got a result and the passage was finally removed after an input by another neutral user in the talk page. See here: diff2, the adding of sources by me: diff, then he does it himself what I said should be done, deletes the whole passage: diff3. As you can see, what he first accused me of turned out to be right.

And those older edits, which I mostly can't even remember anymore, where mostly backed by sources back then. Most of them are minor edits anyway, and not destructive in any way. They were definitely not POV pushing or a "nationalistic mission" or whatsoever. This user apparently wants to simply get me blocked because of personal reasons, it seems. See the Baghatur article, where sources simply get deleted on his whim... If you check my personal histoy here in the English Wikipedia, you will see that I made at least thousand edits and created/wrote many new articles. Most of them in the field of sports. Based on this fact alone one can see that I am not a POV-pushing User on a mission, like this user wants to make you believe.

But this part of his report is the best. Please do check this out, it's important and shows how he is trying to manipulate you (if he is aware that it's not me):

"...and finally wrote a personal attack on my talk page. 23"

That was made by some totally different user. By this one: User:2003:6:212f:ef43:40f0:fbd0:1966:e577 You can confirm that by checking the history in his talk page. That was not by me! But it is simply reported by him as if it was me. This is a serious accusation!

And that IP user is not me nor does not have anything to do with me. Please do an IP check or whatever is necessary to clarify this case. And as a major part of his accusations are based on that dubious IP account, one can see how this reporting is based on practically no consistent foundation. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller and EdJohnston: Would you (or other admins) please look at this report? 72H has passed and I see no replies from the admins. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Can the admins please make it clear that comments like "What is it with Turks and their extreme nationalism?" are not acceptable - since when is it ok for IP editors to post racist comments on ANI? I'm not involved in this content dispute but a comment that all Turks are extreme nationalists easily fits the dictionary definition of racism, canard, racial stereotyping, etc. If someone wrote "What is it with the Jews and their shystyness" I imagine there would be a round of objections. Seraphim System (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the comment in question. To be clear: No, comments like these are not helpful to resolving a discussion and they not acceptable to make. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out once again that all the accusations in the passage "the recent issues" of Wario-Man are from that already blocked IP account (2003:6:212f:ef43:40f0:fbd0:1966:e577) mentioned above. They have nothing to do with me. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for administrators and their comments (this report submitted in 28 October). --Wario-Man (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Wario-Man - All of the diffs and events you referred to in your initial statement are least three weeks in the past; I'm not sure what you want us to do now. Can you provide diffs of recent edits that show the disruption is currently ongoing and requires action at this time? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Oshwah: All of the mentioned diffs describe his disruptive edit pattern and behavior. Ashina/Baghatur diffs was recent when I submitted this report but if you need recent ones:
  • Aq Qoyunlu: Removed sourced info and replaced it with his OR/POV, plus removal of related navbox.[27] Then started edit warring as usual[28], [29], [30]. Then two editors warned him (one of them is an admin).[31], [32] But he ignored them and started edit warring again.[33] Another editor reverted his edit[34] but he ignored that editor and just repeated same things.[35] and just stopped when he was blocked by an admin: 17:14, 15 November 2017 MSGJ (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Akocsg (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring - change expiry to 72 hours)
  • Bayandur: POV-pushing [36], [37], [38] and ignored the edit warring/3RR warning and edited like previous article.[39] How his edits are POV? Anonymous user (IP) who was involved in content dispute with him, described it on talk page.[40]
  • Dastan Edit warring [41], [42], [43], [44]
As I said, I summarize his behavior as: Writing misleading edit summaries while removing sourced content and replacing them with his POV/OR and personal opinions. Ethnic/Nationalist warrior and WP:BATTLEGROUND. I think there is a valid reason why he is indef-blocked on German Wikipedia. I don't ask same thing for English Wikipedia but since his account is old and he should be familiar with WP rules, then I suggest topic ban or longer timed block. Even a serious warning may be enough, but due to his edit history, I doubt he attends to any warning message. Or any other solution by admins which solves this case. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
If you would check the content of my edit in the Aq qoyunlu article, you would see that I didn't push POV or make disruptive edits at all. All I did there was add brackets and properly place two pictures as well as add relevant categories. What about that is pushing POV and ethnic nationalism?? Same in the Dastan article. All I did was add relevant names in similar languages. I'm wondering why you are desperately trying to show such edits as ethnic nationalist POV-pushing?
You are accusing me of misleading summaries, then what is this listing of simple edits as nationalistic POV here, whcih they aren't? Besides, the dispute in those two articles has already been dealt with (including talk page), so there is no reason for further action. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Petition to indef block: Even if this user was blocked indefinitely on the German Wikipedia 8 years ago, and still has no will to contribute properly anywhere else, the consequences could Baton Pass over to other Wikipedia language sites, regardless if there are records of other mishaps and aftershocks. Whereas, the Meta Wiki Foundation could step in, and look into all of this. Slasher405 (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

As an added update, the user left a message on my talk page, imitating my message, and performing forgery of my signature. There's no point in view that this user is still performing foul play. What can we do about this? Slasher405 (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
This issue has been resolved on Slasher405's talk page. No forgery or whatsoever was intended by me. I just wanted to make sure that the response was noticed, that's all. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Not even close to resolved. Matters to be made worse, he did not reply on the proper page either. He was supposed to reply all of the messages on his own talk page, not mine. Still, it may not be a good idea to copy one message and post it on another one's talk page, and reply the debate from there. Slasher405 (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I did reply on my talk page. See here. Then I simply copied it to your page so that you don't miss it. That's all there is to it. No idea what your motivation is for lying here and misleading the admins. Akocsg (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Admins: Does user Slasher405 even have a right to petition anything here? Since he is no admin I mean. And as can be seen in the few comments above, he distorts facts about me (about not replying on my own talk page). Regards, Akocsg (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I am no admin, but my biggest concern is, just copying and pasting a message from one talk page to the other does not really make sense, even if has a different signature. Before all of this was ever discussed, no one even posted an ANI notice on the user's talk page until I actually did, as the rules require to post an ANI notice when mentioning anyone who could be the main source of an incident. I still feel undetermined about what is really happening, but there is still a bit of unusual history of Akocsg here. Slasher405 (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Um, yes, yes he does. Anyone who is an editor in good standing does. This board is for addressing matters that urgently require the attention of an administrator, not the admins-only club. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I've had people copy my talk page comments from one page to another before and I haven't really minded, I don't see what the harm here is and he already said he would not do it again since it bothered you. The complaint itself is hard to follow since it involves edits from IPs which we can't really assume were him. The rest seems like a content dispute, and both sides are edit warring. The first hit on google books sources the addition of Oghuz Turkic for Aq Qoyunlu [45] and there are many other sources also [46] - I don't really see why this should have devolved into an edit war in the first place. Seraphim System (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Amisom[edit]

This is not going anywhere, probably because it didn't come from anywhere. "Editor requested I take them to admins" is indeed a passive-aggressive way to start an attempt to get another user censored; it should have been recognized that this thread didn't attract admin attention and showed little more than one editor getting another blocked and the other responding in kind, and that is indicative of the fact that this actually did not warrant administrative intervention. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 24 November 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.

Editor requested I take them to admins [47], so I did:
I have concerns that User:Amisom's edits and behaviour need further scrutiny, with possible immediate action to stop multiple PRODs (and AfDs), in particular:

Seems disruptive / borderline WP:NOTHERE.

Comment from Amisom: Widefox has a very unhelpful attitude. They have repeatedly accused me of disruption, just for making points that they disagree with - eg calling the Campaign Against Antisemitism afd “disruption” just because they want the article kept (other users have argued for deletion) - and they have even accused me of “forum-shopping” by starting a discussion on an article talk page. It’s just silly and a bit OWNy. Amisom (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Good link - it sums the disruption well "(general behaviour to be taken up at ANI per issues on user's talk). Point is, when reverted by two editors in 24hr and still don't discuss on the talk, then taking straight to AfC with a non-neutral nom (even !voting) may give the impression of going against consensus and WP:FORUMSHOP. When the RfC is about something that doesn't apply, then it appears disruptive." [75] (of course it's not forum shopping on the talk, but it's a malformed, against edit consensus, non-neutral RfC with no previous discussion per WP:RfC indicating editor doesn't need to discuss their edits, doesn't need to follow RfC discuss on talk first, doesn't need to engage on talk 2x BRD BRD and has contempt for the current consensus, shorthand FORUMSHOP although not one) Widefox; talk 14:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Also @Widefox:'s criticism of me for using the refernce desk - which is a long-standing feature of Wikipedia - is silly. They're clearly just looking for things to complain about and should be given a quiet WP:TROUT and asked to move along. Amisom (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Amisom: Multiple editors have warned you on your talk for months about disruption "..misrepresentations.." "We don't decide things by straw polls at local pages." [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] only warning [82] [83] Dismissing even admins with "you're not an admin I don't want to hear from you" "..accusing others of behaviour that is just not true.." rollback removed, NOTHERE accusation . None of those are me. Can you answer the above first? Especially rapid deletions without performing WP:BEFORE (B, D) even (and when asked that, don't answer [84]) but give a personalised uncivil answer "Duh", and the AfD where nobody agrees with you due to lack of BEFORE. How this is a plus for WP? Widefox; talk 18:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm not going to answer you at all. Amisom (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
It's me now, but over 10 editors on your talk recently, right? You dismiss all (including admins) as non-admins and refuse to discuss, which you were even warned about by another admin! [85] Widefox; talk 02:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Mmm. Well your thread’s been here 12 hours now. How many people agree with you that yiur complaint is valid? Amisom (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Widefox: 36 hours now. Anything? Amisom (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
No sign from this editor yet that they will stop this disruption, no. One more editor complaining about them here, yes (see below). Widefox; talk 03:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • COI and legals There's an editor with a COI (with pending legal issues) discussing Amisom's edits at the AfD [86], that alludes to Amisom having a COI (it is clear as mud there). So, Amisom, do you have any connection with any of these articles, people, etc? Widefox; talk 18:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    They did not allude to me having a conflict of interest. Also nice piece of forum shopping yourself. Amisom (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
(Your behavioural issues should be discussed here, not at the AfD.) Widefox; talk 18:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Well. I don't see how questions at the Refdesk are preventing us from building an encyclopedia. I looked at one or two of the PRODs and AfDs; I reverted a PROD, and the AfD for that CAA article is probably going to close as "keep". So what? Those two articles were in fact terrible, and while AfD is not for cleanup, I can't really fault them for it. I am not sure what kind of political agenda I am supposed to see in their edits, and that supposed COI complaint at the AfD is clear as mud: I don't get it at all. Maybe I'm dense. But then, if you, Widefox, are faulting the editor for useless or poorly-thought out edits, what about this one, where you seem to be arguing for notability based on two websites? Drmies (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outposts: Journeys to the Surviving Relics of the British Empire closed per SNOW. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Drmies I'm concerned about mass PROD, AfD without BEFORE yes. (the refdesk is a miniscule point about NOTHERE) I stand by my dePROD there and said take it to AfD where it was uninimous Keep. Would it have been deleted if I hadn't? A good edit. What about all the other PRODs, AfDs? I don't know what's going on, all I know it's an editor against consensus on most of these deletions, claiming GNG failure when there's 30 sources etc. This is not new - POV removals accused here by an admin "MO..remove content you don't like, even if it's properly sourced..." [87] Widefox; talk 20:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I just saw this report and have to add today’s experience with Amisom, an editor I have not before encountered. I am attempting to rescue a section of Card counting which Amisom has deleted three times. I made it clear in the edit comments and in discussion with them that I am continuing my attempts to salvage the section. The editor is Wikilawyering on my Talk and the article’s talk while I’m trying to work on the article. Although I have reduced unsourced text substantially, added refs to the article, and am researching further refs, the editor has just deleted my work. This is not helpful. O3000 (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    I deleted it because it was unsourced and quite contentious (accusing casinos of systematically “harassing” their customers is a biggie to throw in without a reference). You restored it in direct violation of WP:BURDEN which says that unsourced material should only be restored WITH sources, not before. Come on. Don’t break an explicit policy and then accuse the other guy of wikilawyering. Amisom (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the first mention you've made of the section being contentious. If you’d like me to add all the lawsuits casinos have lost for harassing players, I will. (Actually, there is already a ref in the article.) But, you are making it difficult to work on the article. Particularly since I need to move text between sections. I didn’t write the section in the first place. But, it is worth salvaging. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not pettifog. O3000 (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I tagged the section to request help. Amisom doesn't appear interested in improvement. Only disruption of efforts at improvement. O3000 (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikilawyering-look-over-there-desperation - @Amisom: read WP:REDACTED allows "add links". ([94] = adding titles to links, and links, [95] = ditto, didn't bother checking more) . I will not respond to this nonsense again. Widefox; talk 10:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Great news Amisom (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Great news that I've done nothing wrong, yes. (still, accusations against you by two editors here, and 20-30 on your talk wait for an answer). Widefox; talk 00:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you weren’t going to respond to “this nonsense” (your words) (that you initiated) again? As it happens, the only uninvolved admin who’s not just bitter about a content dispute didn’t find any problem. Does that tell you anything? Amisom (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
(WP:DNFTT). Widefox; talk 09:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
(Passive aggressive) Amisom (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • User:BU Rob13 Is this unblock advice binding? "take under advisement the fact that you're currently under heavy scrutiny. If you fail to discuss your edits, follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle, or otherwise keep your edits constructive, you will be blocked again, and that one may not be lifted." [96] . All three of those are breached in diffs above. Widefox; talk 09:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    If only you could control your desperation to ‘get me in trouble’ by any means possible you could concentrate on improving Wikipedia. Amisom (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the adminhelp template, as placing such template here is counter productive. Alex Shih (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: then how else do you suggest I attract an admin to this thread (which has so much been almost totally ignored) to close it and end the ridicuousness? Amisom (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Amisom, I'd happily ask for closure as soon as you give a sign that you recognise all the other editors concerns, and indicate change will happen. Widefox; talk 11:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Widefox, this last condescending remark is enough reason for me to close this. This was mostly ignored because there was nothing to it. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 24 November 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.

Interaction ban violations[edit]

Despite an interaction ban C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs)continues with following me. He has complained that I violated it by posting in a thread he started, but I was not responding to him, I was agreeing with DHeyward and I had already taken part in that thread. All anyone need do is look at the INDENT, I was not responding to him, I agreed with another editor and reiterated my point made previously. Since Gilmore brought this up he has followed me to the AFD and the new article I created, links above. Can someone ask him to stop following me around. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Mutual TBAN: enough is enough. Unless they can come to some other agreement, ban both of them from AP2 topics and be done with this nonsense. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Or we could just hold Gilmore to the terms of the ban already in place? Rose City Antifa has two editors in total (3 if you count the editor who made one category edit). Why on earth would Gilmore go to the talkpage there if not to poke at DS? And posting at an AFD DS opened? Its pretty clear Gilmore is stalking DS' edits at this point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
So someone violates a IBAN and your answer is a TBAN for the one who did fuck all wrong? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment There are many areas where interest overlap in regards to America, but I do not interact with the other editor and in the case of the AfD, I was following the AfD page since a page I created was put up for deletion. The problem is that I'm not being allowed to (as is allowed in the IBAN), comment on a page without being directly contacted or commented on by other editors, like this current AN/I. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I see violations of the spirit of the IBAN from both editors. The goal of both the IBAN and a TBAN is to prevent this bickering about Antifa articles from happening. That said, if a mutual "Antifa" TBAN is enough to keep you two apart, I'm fine with the TBAN to be limited to that scope. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Bollocks, I've not violated anything Darkness Shines (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Please, just enforce the current IBAN, strictly and completely! I'm tired of being dragged here every other day by DS. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps DS could explain how someone "follows someone around" by posting BEFORE the other person? I don't think causality works that way. --Calton | Talk 16:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
He is referring to the two links at the start of his post. An article where DS is one of two editors, and an AFD DS started. There is no good reason for Gilmore to have gone to either article. The third link is where both editors contributed *prior* to the interaction ban being in place. Sensible people (and in this DS should really also pay attention) who have been interaction banned should back out of discussions where they have previously mutually contributed. It does not mitigate showing up at the other two locations however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
What the hell are you on about? If I created the article and he then turns up how is that not following me around? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment As per the WP:IBAN, which I have followed, I have had no interactions with other editors, in fact, I create a new section in an article for discussion separate from the other editors. The allegations of 'following' are absurd as follow the AfD boards since [99] as I follow all the other Admin boards and many administrators. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Of the diffs in the original complaint, Special:Diff/811115725 seems to be an obvious violation by DS. He claims that the indentation means it's not a reply, but it's immediately after Gilmore's comment and takes a position in opposition to it. Special:Diff/811431271 seems to be an obvious violation by Gilmore. He claims that being in a new section means it's not interaction, but the page was recently created by Darkness Shines and the comment was obviously in response to DS's content additions. The AfD vote is also probably a violation by Gilmore. As both parties seem to want the IBAN "strictly enforced" and seem unaware of their own violations, perhaps both editors need to be blocked. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
    Please explain how I interacted with the other editor? I even started new sections to avoid them. Rose City Antifa is an article that I was working on, but DS published it first[100] As you can see from User:DrmiesTP. This being the case, I stated my work suggestions in a separate section and was going to leave it at that. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
    I was leaning in that direction myself, but hadn't done enough research yet to feel comfortable imposing the solution. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
    At best DS commenting in a thread (in which he had already contributed) directly after Gilmore is unwise. Gilmore showing up at an article DS started and is one of the only two editors editing is frankly stalking. Likewise showing up at an AFD DS started. Its neither credible or plausible they are not following DS around at the moment in order to prod them. Its also clear from the reply below that Gilmore is only interested in wikilawyering around their interaction ban in order to do so. Given DS quite short temper, this is an obvious attempt to provoke them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
You indent with :: You comment with *, so no I was not fucking replying to him, I want nothing to do with him. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Just as an FYI notice to admins, after mulling it over, I did decide to leave both users with a warning. However, the next violations will see some action happening from me or other admins.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
    I would recommend blocking both of them, but I respect your decision in this instance — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
    I'm always hesitant taking such actions on users that have proven to be productive, setting aside issues. I always feel there has to be a different option to resolve matters. I have an idea what the next step would be, but I'm hoping this ANI can help resolve it before I toss it up to the community for review.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think a stricter enforcement of the IBAN is needed, and I'd support a TBAN for C. W. Gilmore beyond that. Both of these editors are clearly spending significant portions of their time on Wikipedia just poking at each other, but Gilmore's tendency to feel the need to respond to every critique or perceived negative comment with outraged defensiveness and walls of text that rely heavily on wikilawyering increasingly feels like someone who is here to fight a war rather than edit productively. Grandpallama (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Interaction ban definition[edit]

The purpose of an interaction ban (IBAN) is to stop a conflict between individuals. A one-way interaction ban prevents user X from interacting with user Y. A two-way ban prevents both parties from interacting with each other. Although the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other.

Editors subject to an IBAN are not permitted to:

  • edit each other's user and user talk pages;
  • reply to each other in discussions;
  • make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
  • undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
  • use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.
  • Note To comment by creating a new section or to vote (speaking to the Admin of AfD) is not direct interaction from the way I read what is above. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Sigh I fully recommend TBAN for both of them. Enough is enough. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposing a new kind of ban (TIBAN)[edit]

Well obviously this is going nowhere, so I've been formulating a new type of ban which will hopefully be the solution to all of this. I call it the Topic-Interaction Ban. If it works it could be added to the list of sanctions to be imposed on parties. It is an extension of an IBAN and expands itself on to topics automatically.

Here are the terms of the ban:

  • Parties of this ban are prohibited from making edits to any page, or it's talk page, if another party of the TIBAN is actively engaged on said page or talk page.
  • A party is considered to be engaged with the page if they are making edits to the page regularly. The edits must be meaningful and useful to qualify.
  • More than 3 edits must be made in a week to be considered regular editing, and only if the edits provide substantial and meaningful changes. This includes talk page discussions.
  • This ban applies to all pages every party's participation has overlapped in. Whoever was the first to edit the page, or it's talk page, with meaningful changes will be allowed to continue editing said pages. Remaining parties must stay away.
  • Making obvious reverts of another party on said page or talk page, even if the user is allowed to edit the page is a violation of this TIBAN.

If this is worth considering implementing, I also propose adding it on to DS and CWG's current IBAN.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - I've been watching this unfold on Cyberpower678's talk, and it's now the third IBAN-turned-into-more that I've seen this year. One turned into a TBAN, one boomeranged into a 1-way IBAN, but this fits neither option (and clearly the IBAN isn't working). I'd say this is a good step that allows each to go along their merry ways. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I'm on board with this as well. Get them completely away from each other, because this sniping back and forth is beginning to resemble two siblings each complaining to their mom that the other one touched him first. Katietalk 21:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Tentative support I'm not convinced this will solve the "get them completely away from each other" problem, but it's an interesting solution, and should be given a chance to work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support For the moment at least... Both parties should read WP:!HERE and understand that confrontational behaviour does not prolong ones tenure as a Wikipedia editor. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Oppose On reflection, I don't think it will work... TBAN for now, but I suspect at least one of them will end up blocked. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Massively over-thought and terrible idea. In the event of any reported infraction you would need to a)determine what is 'actively engaged' - is correcting a spelling mistake active engagement? Adding a category? b)so easy to game its unreal. Either editor could make 3 non-substantive edits to an article and pre-emptively lock the other out from editing it. Long experience has shown that ever more complicated sanctions do not help anything. You could achieve the desired effect here by just topic banning Gilmore from US politics broadly construed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too easy to game, and too complex. A topic ban works just as well. Neutralitytalk 00:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too damn complicated. And the more complicated it is the more game-able it is. And the more complicated and game-able it is, the more drama it will cause. This isn't solving the problem, this is making it worse. Volunteer Marek  00:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Note As a concerned party, this proposal adds clarity to the defining lines of "reply to each other in discussions" and "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly" while allowing both parties to work on subjects (just at different times). Yes, it may seem complicated but it does give clearer guidance and wider boundaries; given that wide variety of articles that are worked on and the overlap on some of the topics. A standard TBAN does not work, when differences of opinion run across wide areas of discussion from history to current politics (both in the UK and the USA); increasing TBAN is not the answer (tried before). I believe this approach of widening the distance between the parties will work and reduce complaints being brought to the AN/I; at least it's worth a try in my opinion. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it would just incentivize each user to rush to grab as many articles as they can and "pre-emptively lock the other out". GABgab 03:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
    Well actually they would have to continue making edits to the article otherwise, the other party can edit it. They have to keep editing the article. Making one edit and then leaving will not lock the other out.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 04:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
    But making trivial edits on a continuous basis would. Likeiwse editor A makes two edits, editor B makes two edits, they both make a third edit within say a day of each other - who is editing it regularly? Editor A was there first, Editor B can argue they shouldn't be locked out of something they are actively editing. That's just one of the many scenarios that this would cause a headache. If the goal is to stop editors interacting, and one/both of them has a very defined topic area, just ban the one that is least productive and most problematic from the topic and be done with it. By any standard that's Gilmore. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
OR Ban either party from a site or it's pages for 24hrs after the last post by the other party, so there is no overlap or interaction. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
OR and this is a crazy thought, we could topic ban the person who is most disruptive and has been clearly stalking the other editor. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Going back to my proposal, which maybe is too complicated, the general idea is if both are making trivial edits, both can make edits to the article. If all they are doing is fixing typos, the edits are meaningful, but not substantial. The point of it is that if one party is making meaningful substantial changes, they are considered to be engaged in an article, and when they stop making said substantial changes, they are no longer engaged. This would keep them from stepping on each other's toes. The complexity of it, is to factor in possible attempts to game the restriction.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

────────── Honestly, I think you've been more than accommodating to both parties. Far too accommodating in the face of obviously disruptive editing. TBAN now. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Then I'll leave it to other admins then.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Continued discussion[edit]

It's fairly clear from the thread on Cyberpower's talkpage that both editors are at fault here and neither is willing to admit their own breaches. And they are crying foul when told that more misbehavior will result in escalation to a TBan. It's not clear that Cyberpower's "TIBan" would solve the problem, but it is clear that if they abide by the stricture Cyberpower posted on his talkpage: "Clarifying IBAN, both of you should follow this directive. Don't respond, AT ALL, to discussions started by the other" (in addition to the other aspects of an IBAN), that the situation would be resolved. Either they have the maturity and patience and calmness and self-control and wisdom to abide by that, or they don't. And if they don't it's either a TBan (if they both are at fault) or a block (if only one is at fault) the next time. Pretty simple. I say we give them a chance with this in mind, and ask them to have the maturity and patience and detachment to stay away from each other and each other's discussions. Softlavender (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverting whithout discussion at PFC Cherno More Varna[edit]

There is a longstanding content dispute at PFC Cherno More Varna. I tried to start a discussion on the article's talk page on 10 August, inviting Rebelheartous immediately. I asked him again to discuss the matter one month later, on 10 September. On 3 October, I left a talkback on his user talk page. When I hadn't heard from him in two weeks, I left another talkback. When he still had not responded in 10 days, I edited the article and he reverted me again, still without discussing. The guidelines say that I can't get dispute resolution without talk page discussion. What should I do? Isn't continuing to revert my edit without discussing it with me disruptive editing? Yavorescu (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Rebelheartous suggested on the Bulgarian talk page we follow the procedures on the English article. Now it seems he is the one not following the procedures by reverting without discussion. Okalinov (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

New Nate Speed sockpuppet[edit]

Speedily dealt with. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 24 November 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.

Can an admin take a look at edits by 130.193.181.138? It looks like a WP:DUCK of block evasion by User:Nate Speed. See, for example, the user is readding edits that another Nate Speed IP added previously. Because this banned user jumps IPs frequently and abuses proxies, it might be prudent to semi-protect the articles he is editing. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Proxy blocked, some articles semi'd. GABgab 05:18, 24 November 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.

vandal backlog[edit]

AIV cleared of the junk reports by the IP who spams it with stale vandals. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:28, 24 November 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Football_Association_of_Malaysia&action=history


can an admin block this guy please Govindaharihari (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey Govindaharihari. Taken care of. Next time consider WP:AIV. GMGtalk 07:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I reported it there first - no one was manning that reports page, it was back logged. 7. 02 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=811827511 Govindaharihari (talk) 07:23, 24 November 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 conflict that was supposed to go below. But sometimes edits wind up in the wrong places, here in...The Twilight Zone.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Yes, as it's a clear WP:BLP violation, and I've rev deleted. But in future, please do not report such things here (as per the big red warning when you edit this page) on what is one of the most widely watched pages on Wikipedia, as we don't want to advertise such things. Instead, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#How to request Revision Deletion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Boing! I think you meant for this to go below. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, thanks - it was one of those weird edit conflicts, I think, or something. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Cadence Design Systems[edit]

Dealt with. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:34, 25 November 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 a handy admin look at this diff and decide if a rev/del is warranted. I think it is. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thx. Have now warned IP. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a clear WP:BLP violation, and I've rev deleted. But in future, please do not report such things here (as per the big red warning you see when you edit this page) on what is one of the most widely watched pages on Wikipedia, as we don't want to advertise such things. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Nobody reads that crap, but I accept the admonishment. I have no idea how to use templates like that though. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 14:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Not an admonishment, just a friendly request for next time - and there's more at Wikipedia:Revision deletion#How to request Revision Deletion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 24 November 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.

Weird cross-wiki talk page vandalism[edit]

Resolved, NAC SwisterTwister talk 17:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mainly 124.106.128.178 (talk · contribs · count); it's happening on my talk pages here, Wiktionary, and also Commons. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Already blocked here. This seems related to repeat vandalism at User talk:Dreaded Walrus, a user that hasn't edited enwiki in 6 years and doesn't seem to have any crosswiki contribs. Weird. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Need a quick delete + revdel + block[edit]

Revdelled by User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 25 November 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.

If it hasn't been done already: [101]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Indeffed the IP, that can be changed if others think it is appropriate. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:55, 25 November 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.

Sockpuppetry, edit warring by a banned user, using racist language[edit]

Taken care of--Ymblanter (talk) 10:44, 25 November 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.

Yes I did reported this on WP:SPI on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat (a banned user), but this is also a case of WP:NOTHERE. If you see the recent edit warring on Jammu, Mirpur, Pakistan, you would find this really racist and disruptive,[102][103] yes the user is using his IP and account both, to edit war. Capitals00 (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Blocked. I agree with Capitals00, and have indeffed User:ShaniAli1lo and blocked the static IP 82.132.242.130 for two weeks. Thank you for reporting, Capitals00. Bishonen | talk 18:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC).
  • Comment: There is still concern that the indef blocked account might be a suspected sock of a previous account, per investigation. Nevertheless, the previous account is also indef blocked, but even if both were indef blocked, there's not that many more paths to go from here. Slasher405 (talk) 19:42, 24 November 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.

Behavioral and content dispute[edit]

WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 26 November 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 contacting you because you are listed as an editor willing to provide behavioral and content assistance. I would like you to take a look at the content dispute and the behavior of the editors Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K as well Kuru, the administrator that backs them .

The full content dispute of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pythagoras is found here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=811537461 since a fellow friend editor Dr. K who seems to be a meatpuppet of the editor I am having the dispute with erased my last entry. I would like you to look at the sources I have provided and my analysis on the source he has provided (which leaves out plenty of ancient biographers that state Pythagoras's father was from Tyre) and to bring an objective view into this discussion.

I would also like you to look into this editors behaviors as him and fellow editor friends (Dr K and Khirurg) seem to be meatpuppets as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry. When editor Katolophyromai felt like he was losing the debate he resorted to accusing me of sockpuppeting to his fellow meatpuppet Dr. K which you can look at here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr.K.#ViamarisBalbi_is_back_under_two_new_sockpuppet_accounts

This is the second (or perhaps third) time Katolophyromai and Khirurg has gotten help from his fellow friend editor Dr. K who does not participate in the discussions/talk page in a productive/objective way but is always ready to take their side and game the system as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system to support his friend editors with their edit reversals. The previous time they accused ViamarisBalbi of personal attacks against the editor he was having a content dispute and got him blocked when in reality if you look at his appeal on his talk page he really wasnt making personal attacks. Dr. K always resorts to administrator Kuru who always takes their side and does not seem to care that editors Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K are involved in the edit reversal of sourced contents which is obvious vandalism and POV pushing. You can see previous examples of their meatpuppetry in the following cases:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thales_of_Miletus#Phoenicia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thales_of_Miletus#Trash_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thales_of_Miletus#Ancient_sources_and_19th_century_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Euclid#Arabian_sources_of_Euclid https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euclid&diff=810206844&oldid=810205477 (Here Dr. K supports Khirug act of vandalism in which Khirug puts down a statement from a very legitimate source and adds his own and removes an important blue link in the sentence) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomism&diff=809056910&oldid=808621458 (Here Khirug removed ViamarisBalbi edit that has a legitimate source and later here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomism&diff=810213721&oldid=810211103 Dr. K helps him doing the same Khirug does it again here without a legitimate reason/discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomism&diff=810230721&oldid=810221056

Katolophyromai, Khirurg and Dr. K as well Kuru, all edit on similar articles related to Ancient Greece and Greek nationalism. It also happens that their usernames all sound Greek and start with letter K which makes their connection seem a bit too obvious and suspicious. I would highly appreciate your time and help on looking on this. ViamarisBalbi and I believe that legitimate sockpuppeting might be the only way to stop this harassment since filling ISP reports for meatpuppeting sometimes get lost in limbo or take too long to be reviewed and these editors wont stop Wikihouding as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding and continue their witch hunt as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Witch_hunt to prevent ViamarisBalbi and CalinicoFire from making sourced contributions. ThanksCalinicoFire (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Far from one single editor, we are many. Just look at those names: four Ks, hmmm. That is indeed suspicious. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The removal of a blue link is really nothing, at least not something to drag someone to ANI for, and neither is replacing one source with another. Why are you not contributing to the discussion on the talk page about those sources? Drmies (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
This editor's recent posts indicate that they are WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I suspect that the OP does not understand how things work at the 'pedia. [[User:|CalinicoFire]] you need to wait and see how things turn out at WP:DRN. Considering that the other editors involved are all in good standing I would also suggest that you refrain from making accusations of sock/meat puppetry without substantial proof. MarnetteD|Talk 23:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
OK lets try the ping again CalinicoFire. MarnetteD|Talk 23:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • What is it with these sock warriors? Can't you at least pretend to be better at it? Someone please consider filing the paperwork--I think ViamarisBalbi is the oldest, but maybe Hughesshots is. I'm going to block them all indefinitely, CU-confirmed, since they are clearly abusing these different accounts. Also blocked: Enion Glas. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
    • The ViamarisBalbi and I believe that legitimate sockpuppeting might be the only way to stop this harassment line had me completely fooled. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - The Original Post is syntactically in English, but I don't know what the semantic meaning is. There are two possible responses. The first is to block the Original Poster for competence. The second is to ignore the post, and for now that may be the better option. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Concur. The only thing I can make out is "they all start with K and sound Greek to me, they have to be socks!". - The Bushranger One ping only 02:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
It's not clear how he gets to Greek with "Kuru." Fore or Sanskrit, for sure. The best read of the semantics would be "I'm mad that one of my socks was blocked for a 3RR at ANEW a week ago, and now a passable SPI has been filed, so I'm going to commit suicide by ANI before a checkuser shows up to work the queue and maybe someone will buy this cuckoo bananapants bullshit." I reckon. Kuru (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, the CU came, saw, and block-ered, so I think we're done here. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Why isn't Kudpung and Krakatoa Kate on that list? I used to live in Kalamazoo, perhaps I should be too. John from Idegon (talk) 03:11, 26 November 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 Unblock request[edit]

Autoblock lifted by issuing admin. Swarm 08:10, 25 November 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.

Greetings, I am conducting an edit-a-thon on English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons in Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. The IP has been blocked mistaking it for use of multiple accounts (sockpuppetry). The message shows "This block has been set to expire: 10:44, 26 November 2017. The block ID is: 8020841. The event link can be referred on Outreach Dashboard. Requesting for immediate unblock. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The block is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Koushik Avula and was placed by 5 albert square. — JJMC89(T·C) 07:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
OK IP should now not be automatically blocked however the user is still blocked until they address the issues raised especially regarding using copyrighted images 5 albert square (talk) 07:12, 25 November 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.

Hitler[edit]

Music man214, This noticeboard is not for content disputes, which yours is. Also, Wikipedia content operates by WP:CONSENSUS, and the current consensus is against inclusion. If you do not like the consensus, you may attempt to avail yourself of some form of dispute resolution. But this board is not for that. Softlavender (talk) 12:31, 25 November 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.

Please see read information under the last bold heading on the following link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adolf_Hitler


Sirs, I am new here, and I am not sure of the process. Any guidance you can give me will be great. I recently read the book, "The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich", and I have what I believe to be important information about the origin of Adolph Hitlers dislike of the jews. Since the main Wikipedia article on Adolph Hitler is protected, see

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

...I posted my two paragraphs in the sandbox for the editors to review and comment on. My information is very valid. But if you read the responses to it, I am obviously being screwed by immaturity and some sort of vengeance by editors who are less than knowledgeable on Adolph Hitler. I would like this to stop. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music man214 (talkcontribs) 11:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I've had a look at what you were proposing to add and I agree that it's not suitable for inclusion. Try reading WP:AGF. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:26, 25 November 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.

Minneapolis child sex abuse ring[edit]

Jack_Coppit blocked indefinately for disruptive editing by Jpgordon. John from Idegon (talk) 20:02, 25 November 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've just deleted Minneapolis child sex abuse ring as a possible BLP violation and would appreciate some other input. Per WP:BLPDELETE, there was no version of the article that was clearly BLP compliant.

Several members of the Somali-American community were charged with sex trafficking in 2010. Three were convicted. I made some copy edits to the article today and found a source that said the convictions had been overturned and the appeal upheld in 2016 (see Talk:Minneapolis child sex abuse ring#Appeal). The article has been contentious because it was created by a new editor and it's a sensitive issue. I therefore decided to err on the side of caution and delete until someone can create an accurate version. I've suggested on talk that it be written in draftspace.

Pinging TonyBallioni, Drmies, Kablammo, NatGertler, and Chrissymad, who have been dealing with this, and the creator, Jack Coppit. If someone thinks I ought not to have deleted it, please feel free to undelete without consulting me. SarahSV (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that was a good delete. It might be a BLP issue but it met with extensive news coverage and while one person was exonerated, that still doesn't negate the notability of the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The "forjustice.org" source discussed here and on the article Talk page refers to a Tennessean case, not a Minnesotan one. Is this correct? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The names of the three convicted in the article are the names on that website, and it says the convictions were overturned. The case was heard in Tennessee. I don't know why it had Minneapolis in the title; several states were involved, I believe. The title was one of the issues of contention on the talk page. I'm not involved in this and have very little knowledge of it, except that I've seen several editors express concern. I'm hoping the others can clarify. SarahSV (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure why you think that merited a deletion. The individuals were convicted and if they were subsequently overturned then a sub catergory for “appeal” would be far more suitable than simply removing the page. It took up a large amount of news coverage and it is certainly notable. The page should be reinstated. Jack Coppit —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I would like to also point at the related BLPN discussion. —PaleoNeonate – 21:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
From BLPN, pinging Eggishorn, Cullen328, Tornado chaser, John from Idegon. SarahSV (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, SarahSV, and thanks for finding that site, which links to the decision on appeal. It seems that some people think that the default position is to repeat allegations in the news as fact, rather than to wait until actual facts are established. Your actions here are commendable. Kablammo (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, all three of the defendants in question were acquitted by the trial court judge after the trial, and that judgment of acquittal was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit. United States of America v. Idris Fahra et al. Kablammo (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know that the convictions were overturned - then definitely delete. The coverage was always on the immediate events - arrests and trials - so it fell into WP:NOTNEWS. (The article also had problematic racist overtones.) So at this point what we have is an accusation that failed to secure a conviction and no sign of lasting impact. If there was crime involved, tragic though it may be, that tragedy does not confer notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC) (And now having read through that ruling - there's real problems with any claim there was a sex trafficking ring at all. There's no there there. What the article's author tried to portray as a sex ring handling 200 girls turns out to be the highly problematic claims of two Janes Doe. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC) )
Kablammo, thanks for finding that document, which explains what seems to have happened. There's nothing here for Wikipedia, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLPCRIME. SarahSV (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
If you google "mall of america prostitution" you'll see plenty of info about the subject, possibly starting with this 2003 article from Newsweek.[104] It doesn't name any names, of course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how that 2003 article had anything to do with the supposed ring that was claimed in 2010; this was not a generic article on prostitution in Minneaoplis. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hard to tell, given the generic nature of the article title. And note that most of the articles are from the last couple of years. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

These articles shows more of the reasons why we should be skeptical with these cases:

and there's much more, for anyone interested. Kablammo (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I saw the rev-delete go by today and looked again at the history of the article, including my own removals--I always thought this was iffy at best, the title being one of the problems. At the time I read all the sources and because they were there and were reliable, I chose not to take it any further, but I did not know there were acquittals or, indeed, that there was so much more (thank you Kablammo). This is a BLP; we should err, if we err, on the side of caution, and I am perfectly happy with the deletion. I hope that the involved editor/s will find other things of interest on Wikipedia than this particular topics.

    Note: that there's so much newspaper interest in such cases is often a problem for us; there is a similar thing in Britain and we have an article on it--that article (also) strikes me as a honey pot for those who see a good opportunity to bash some Others. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I deleted an earlier version of this article as a BLP violation and explained our policies briefly but forcefully to Jack_Coppit in the first minutes of November 13. He removed my message indicating that he had read it. I was aware that another version of the article had been written and it was my understanding that it did not mention people who were not convicted. I have not had time to take a deeper look at that article and the underlying sources and issues, so I am very grateful to Kablammo and SarahSV for investigating and deleting. Well done. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

A new editor, in complete good faith, started a new article based on wire service news articles. The article stated as facts what were mere allegations-- which were allowed to stand despite objections. The article then was truncated (by me) and then deleted (by Sarah, who found a site, by itself perhaps not authoritative, which said the convictions were reversed, and had a link to the most reliable source of all on that-- the Court of Appeals). We now find that, in the views of the trial and appellate court, that the indictments and convictions may have been procured by false testimony, and defendants spent years in prison for charges that were later dismissed.

Perhaps there should be a list of "best practices" for the guidance of new editors as well as the rest of us. We should not assert as fact what are only allegations. (The presumption of innocence should apply even on Wikipedia.) Google searches should be done for the names of the defendants. Where a court action has taken place, searches should be done to see if there are later rulings (and often Google searches for defendants' names will produce links those rulings). Kablammo (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Kablammo, your last point could be added to WP:BLPCRIME, namely that editors should google defendants' names, particularly when creating an article, to make sure they're aware of all the rulings. SarahSV (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
While it would help to search, another big problems is that there's often disproportionate coverage. This isn't so much an issue in extremely high profile examples like this, but with a relatively unknown individual from what I've seen it isn't uncommon there is a flurry of initial coverage, and some coverage of the initial court case and outcome and then very little afterwards even if there is some significant change. I say change here because I think civil cases are often even worse. Countries where court cases are far less routinely available online (i.e. many outside the US) mean we often don't even have primary sources. (Sometimes we have the problem where one party has made the court case documents available. While it's probably unlikely they've modified the documents, it's definitely not the best situation. And of course if there is yet another change they may not add these documents to their collection.) Fortunately many of these just don't belong on wikipedia but sometimes you may have an example where you have something which perhaps seems to have significant enough coverage, and the person just meets the notability requirements and we have an article on them but there are potentially new details on the case we just can't find. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Sounds like the article should be renamed Heather Weyker lying cop scandal. EEng 03:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow. So, Jack’s article was an egregious defamatory lie of omission. I say “lie” because he clearly knew enough about the case to have known the omitted outcome. Well done all. Jack should be shown the door. -Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

So the author was given a level 4im warning for creating the deleted draft, makes a bunch of POINTy edits to other sex scandal articles, re-creates another article in mainspace that is now deleted and turns out to be cherry picked at best? And there is a debate on what to do? I'd say that clearly an indeff for Jack is called for here. Per NOTHERE and RGW. Are we being hesitant to act because this involves child sex trafficing? To me it appears to be much more about racism. John from Idegon (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
There are reasons beyond the fact that his article creation has focused on building one about this very selective and ultimately false picture of this. Even given the sources he had, the editor was spinning it as a case of Somali men (and yes, they were mostly from the Somali community in the US) selling 200 (by interpreting number of witnesses rounded up for the case - most of whom were not used in the case - as victims) American girls (actually from the same community as the accused) to Somali clients (no source for that!) in one of the largest such rings in the area (unsourced). This gives me pause about whether the goal was an accurate depiction of events, or whether some certain spin might be involved. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added this sentence to WP:BLPCRIME: "Before publishing that an individual has been convicted of a crime, editors should take reasonable steps to determine whether the conviction was overturned." I've left "reasonable steps" undefined, but we could add advice in a footnote about what to look for. SarahSV (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh and I should add to my above comment (wrote many hours ago, just posted) that besides the sources problem, we have the same issue with our contributors namely that everyone gets super excited about it early on, so it's added to the article, then no one cares about it when it's changed (and for the reasons highlighted above they probably don't know anyway) so it's never updated. Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Misuse of sources Fabrication of quotes/Misrepresentation of sources[edit]

Jack Coppit altered the Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom article to remove the phrase "at least", with an edit summary intimating that the source was being misquoted. diff I read the source document, found that it wasn't being misquoted and corrected this. diff Jack later removed the key phrase "at least" again. In the edit summary he placed a quote that does not exist in the source document. diff I fixed this, and explained the quotes, using page numbers, here on the talk page and here on Jack's talk page. He reverted again, and in his responses at both talk pages has provided "doctored" quotes from the source document. The document - a pdf - is available here. The quotes are from page 30. Quite clearly, this doctoring of the quote is POINTy and intellectually dishonest. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

If you indeed look at the PDF, the statement says according to the inquiry that " at least 1400 children were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013." it should be noted that the inquiry includes numbers from boys too in this 16 year period. As per 4.16 "Generally, there has been relatively low reporting of sexual exploitation of young males, with the exception of the police operation and a criminal conviction in 2007 of an offender who abused over 80 boys and young men. Over the years, this was identified at inter-agency meetings and i