Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive971

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

Noticeboard archives


Julia Mora article[edit]

The article is currently at AfD. There's really not much more to be done here. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 9 December 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.

Someone keeps editing this article ,writing unsourced stuff. It seems as if Mora is writing it herself. Look at the hundreds of edits over the past few years. It says in past edits she has been married to a Dennis Peterson and a Alejandro Andrisani. It may be block evasion by someone previously indefinitely blocked(who had edited this page before) Someone keeps writing she was born in 1972. That simply can't be true. The Miami herald wrote she was born in 1962 in 1985. It's impossible a 12 year old competed in Miss El Salvador contest. Most likely at least half the content on this article is untrue. I think this article needs edited by a administrator and locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquan7474 (talkcontribs) 16:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Is she even notable? Winning Miss El Salvador doesn't confer automatic notability, and nor does merely competing (as oppposed to winning) Miss Universe. All the sources are/were unreliable so it's effectively an unsourced BLP at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Al hotties are notable...
So, it seems to me pretty likely that the WP:SPA obsessing over this article is a sockpuppet of the blocked WP:SPA that started it, Intelectual123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Treasure55555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) may also be a sock. See also Andreslorca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The current one, Daquan7474 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), is either a stalker or the subject's PR, I reckon. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
More socking in the AfD.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Daquan7474, may I ask why this is the only article you have ever edited or commented on on Wikipedia? Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Somebody has left an obviously biased comment on Daquan7474's talk page. It is not signed, but I will find the username. (Somebody obviously doesn't now what a revision history is.) TomBarker23 (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Got them. 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:809F:585A:2176:1425| (talk, you're nicked. TomBarker23 (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

What now?[edit]

I need a little help now. I don't know how to add a diff yet, and I don't want to delete the comment on Daquan7474's talk page until I have diff'd it.

I have left a level 1 warning about false info, NPOV and including your name on talk pages about the IP concerned. Can somebody do the rest while we see how they react? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomBarker23 (talkcontribs) 10:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, instead of diffing it, here's the offending comment: "Daquan7474, it seems like you have something "personal" against Miss El Salvador Universe, Julia Mora. You keep deleting her information. She is all over the internet. I appreciate it if you please stop. We understand that when someone wins a tittle like this, there are always people that cannot get over it and harass beauty queens but please leave Julia alone. She is a great woman." There is no way this is allowed. I will clean the talk page. TomBarker23 (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at their contributions. This is crazy. Accusations of harassment, no edits not about the subject, offending edit summaries- basically, this user looks like a fairly simple NOTHERE account. [[2]] TomBarker23 (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Julia Mora
  • Julia Haydee Mora Maza
  • Julia Haydee Mora
  • Julia Haydee Mora Alfaro
  • Julia Mora Andrisani (past edits indicate she was married to a Alejandro Andrisani in 2008)
  • Julia Mora Peters or Peterson (past edits indicate she was married to a Dennis Peterson in 1988 and divorced in 1990.
  • date of birth October 10th 1962

Not sure why someone keeps writing I am jealous? I am sure Mora is a great person,but some editor keeps writing she is 10 years younger than the 1985 Miami Herald indicates. The radar online video said she was the mother of one child. In a youtube video entitled Julia Mora her life exposed,it chronicles a marriage ceremony to a Alejandro Andrisani.

Just to clarify, I never nominated this page for deletion,i simply said the phantom editor/sock puppet that keeps editing with fake birthdates,etc needs to be blocked. I was suggesting the page be locked,not deleted.

It would be great if Miss El Salvador could publish a video in Spanish with English sub titles detailing all her romantic realationships,marriages and any children.

user prcelebrity keeps leaving biased comments on my talk page.

I agree with user TomBarker23

I think the best solution would be to redirect to the Miss El Salvador article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquan7474 (talkcontribs) 01:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

As for the "obsessed stalker" opinion, Daquan7474 has started to edit other pages than this one. See his recent AFD (and its incorrect placement below!) TomBarker23 (talk) 12:22, 8 December 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.

Wrong edits of[edit]

Believe this has been resolved. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, continue the disruptive edits (0 source and so strange informations) of on Rail transport in Paraguay; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive970#Cross-wiki vandalism of for more details. I would like a new block for

--NB80 (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Your edit summary, Votre imagination n'a rien d'encyclopédique, presumably means "Your imagination is not encyclopedic." Keep it in English, and avoid personal attacks, s'il vous plaît.Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Ajraddatz, the Steward that did the global block before. Dennis Brown - 14:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
These IP abuse and abuse. Please block it please (it's the better solution). --NB80 (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I've globally blocked this individual IP as well, as it is continuing the pattern of some good, some disruptive edits across multiple wikis. @NB80: if you are requesting global blocks for IP addresses, the best place to do that is at m:Steward requests/Global. Regards, -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: OK. Thanks! --NB80 (talk) 19:26, 8 December 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.

Range block for dynamic IPs which never learn[edit]

Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:44, 9 December 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. (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also had (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the IPs were blocked several times for disruptive edits. By disruptive edits I mean supporting a ludicrously preposterous thesis (namely that Muslims are idol worshipers) with crappy sources, then repeating arguments which fall under WP:POLEMIC. Those IPs show they have learned nothing from their previous blocks, reinstating the same WP:POLEMIC argumentation which got them blocked and even made unable to edit their own talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this person evading a block? I noticed some of the latest edits were reverted for block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
AFAIK, their block had already expired. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not the Muslim basher you are looking. Pardon me if I don't do the Jedi handwave as I say that, as that would imply that I am the Muslim basher you are looking for.
I was blocked twice for 2 Edit War which were started by Tgeorgescu. I might point out that he never received a warning for starting those edit wars. I repeatedly asked for a discussion with him and he kept refusing, first to even discuss anything while reverting my material, and later refusing to answer even simple questions. He doesn't seem to like my points and is using underhanded ways to basically get rid of me. I'm assuming that bringing me up here is just another way to make life miserable for me so that I will go away. That Tgeorgescu started them both can be easily confirmed. That I kept asking for discussion, can also be confirmed
Both blacks have expired and I can post. I have different Id's becasue I turned off my DSL modem. I was moving stuff around the house and I unplugged it, and on startup/reboot it gave me a new IP number.
Substantial material that I posted on the Abomination of Desolation has been undone by Wasell, with the explanation given as "block evasion". Since Tgeorgescu states that I am OK to post, I hope that my reversal of this bogus reversal will not start another edit war.
If it does I will report it here. (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Also would like to point out that one edit war was over material I posted on the talk page of the article that he doesn't like, and he reverting it to get rid of it,instead of engaging in discussion of that material. (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
And I just blocked you for a week for disruption on the talk page. It is patently unclear what you are trying to achieve there. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 9 December 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.

Rangeblock request - 2804:14D:7284:8EE8:*[edit]

Range blocked for one week. Please let NinjaRobotPirate know if it starts up again. Softlavender (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
(non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am requesting a rangeblock for 2804:14D:7284:8EE8:*. For the past few months, this user has disruptively edited or vandalized various cartoon pages. Most commonly, they are entering false dates or change episode ordinals. Example diffs: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. Let me know if it starts up again (it probably will). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:23, 9 December 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.

Abdulrahman Elsamni[edit]

After blocking a couple of more users for recreation/sockpuppetry and protecting a couple of more titles I think we are done here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have tagged Abdulrahman Elsamni for speedy deletion because it is a cross wiki hoax that has been placed in English, French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and Swedish. The Italian, Swedish, Dutch and Portuguese versions are deleted yet, the others may follow soon. The person is not notable. However, the writer of the article is acting as an activist and is removing the speedy deletion tag again and again. Please can an administrator take over the control of the page? Thank you. Ymnes (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

He now continues with an IP user. I think the page should be deleted right away, just like it was don in Italian, Swedish, Portuguese and Dutch. It is clearly a hoax of a non notable person. Ymnes (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Can someone block the page until the speedy deletion tag has been cleared? Ymnes (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I speedy deleted the article because of lack of notability. It does not seem to be a hoax, some of the cited literature mentions one work of A. Elsamni, but the work appears to be a master thesis, which is way blow our notability standards.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: After you deleted Abdulrahman Elsamni, he put it back there. Pleas can you delete it again and block the page space from being republished? Ymnes (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted again and blocked the uploader for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Knowing his perseverance for months yet, it's probaby best to block the article space too from being rewritten for several years. Ymnes (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
It crossed and has been done yet. Ymnes (talk) 13:51, 9 December 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:Colonies Chris[edit]

Per WP:AWB term of use #3: "Do not make controversial edits with [AWB]. Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue; village pump, WikiProject, etc. "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale." Given this discussion and the linked discussion at WP:CFB, these changes are rather controversial, and there is no consensus for Colonies Chris to be making these changes using AWB at this time. Accordingly:
  • Colonies Chris is directed to stop using AutoWikiBrowser, or other automated editing tools, to make edits of any type to state name abbreviations, until he has:
  1. Started a discussion at an appropriate venue, or venues given that there are multiple WikiProjects whose articles he is covering, on whether or not it is desirable to alter state name abbreviations within the scope of that venue, and whether or not it is desirable to use an automated tool to do so;
  2. Has established a firm consensus that the automated edits to state name abbreviations he wishes to make are desirable; and
  3. Has had the discussion or discussions establishing consensus evaluated and closed by another editor in good standing before initiating the automated edits he has gained consensus for.

While his continuing to conduct the automated edits that are the subject of this discussion after concerns were raised, and repeatedly brushing off the concerns that were raised, is concerning, it is understood that he undertook this editing on a good-faith basis. However any further automated editing of state name abbreviations following this point (with a reasonable grace period for his being aware of this closure with regards to any currently-running tasks) without following the above process will be considered disruptive editing, and may result in sanctions at the discretion of the administrator handling the situation. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Colonies Chris notified. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There has been a long-running tendency of this editor making a number of edits using a script, some of which are disputed. Specifically, the practice of removing State/province after city even in cases where City, State is used for consistency (like tables and infoboxes in basketball and other sport-related articles see example here). He cites WP:USPLACE as the basis for these edits, but that section does not address dropping “State” except in the case of naming articles. For sport articles, keeping State intact does serve a purposes for the reader. In addition to adopting a consistent format that makes infoboxes scannable, use of State in college recruiting tables allows a reader to discern how national or regional a school’s recruiting base. A basketball fan could easily see how widely a team travels for games by scanning states in the schedule table. My issue with this user is that he applies these changes with minimal policy backing, against existing consensus, and as yet to isten to the several editors who ave objected. I have been involved in discussions at least back to July 2016, then again in October of that year. The editor stopped this behavior, but then started up again recently. The editor never listens to objections, despite multiple editors expressing similar concerns, so I feel like ANI is the last resort. I was warned that this editor does listen or change behavior, but I have tried to discuss directly at each instance. I would like this editor to stop removing State after city in sport infoboxes and tables. One of the issues is this editor edits via script, so he may make multiple changes with one click. It is undue burden for editors like me to sort through all of these changes to revert the one area in question - he can remove it from his script. Worth noting that other editors have a similar concern about this editor converting State/province abbreviations to full names in tables, but I do not have a strong opinion on this. At issue, though, is the same type of response - not listening and “enforcing” non-existing (or open to interpretation) policy. Rikster2 (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, for US places article titling conventions generally control how cities are referred to in articles -- see MOS:PN#Place_names. Naturally common sense should be applied, and consistency in a table or infobox certainly might be a reason to deviate. I'll also say, however (stimulated by one of the diffs you supplied) I'm pretty sure we almost never use the two-digit postal abbreviations for states (e.g. CA) but rather the older-style abbreviations instead (e.g. Calif.), where abbreviation is warranted; but I don't recall if that's said anywhere or just implicit in MOS:PN combined with WP:USPLACE. [Later: Well, see MOS:POSTABBR ]. EEng 05:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC) observation has been that the abbreviations are the opposite. I've seen , FL; , GA; etc. used reguarly but never the "long-form abbreviations" to my recollection. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, this is exactly the sort of topic on which lots and lots of articles might be doing the wrong thing, but like I said I can't recall a MOS provision on point; I could be wrong. What I'm vaguely thinking is that, while we expect most readers to recognize states of the US, provinces of Canada, and counties of the UK, we don't expect them to know all the postal abbreviations. Hell, even I get MI and MO and AL and AK mixed up. EEng 05:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
USPLACE most certainly does not mandate ALWAYS dropping State after major cities. The right move would be to try and change/clarify the guideline if one is passionate that this SHOULD be the case. What would not be the right move is to bludgeon 100s of articles with your interpretation of how the guidance should be applied in the face of multiple editors disagreeing with your interpretation of the guidance over the course of years. Sports projects have the leeway to include State for major city in tables/infoboxes for consistency and scannability (I leave it alone in prose). Let’s focus on the editor behavior here. Rikster2 (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, upon review, MOS:PN#Place_names specifically talks about alternate place names due to language and historical naming, not the use of modifiers. “New York” vs. “Nueva York” is addressed, but “Cincinnati” vs. “Cincinnati, Ohio” is not and both Cincinnati variants are correct via language or history. It also doesn’t address tables or infoboxes where internal consistency may be desired. I don’t see the value to the reader to drop the State from 3 out of 35 entries in a college sports schedule, just because an article is named “Minneapolis” instead of “Minneapolis, Minnesota.” Rikster2 (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Nobody said anything about "mandating", so calm down.
  • As for "MOS:PN#Place_names specifically talks about alternate place names due to language and historical naming, not the use of modifiers": No, what MOS:PN#Place_names says is In general, other articles should refer to places by the names which are used in the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which in turn gives detailed guidelines on when to use modifiers, and which. As for tables and infoboxes, I already said, "Naturally common sense should be applied, and consistency in a table or infobox certainly might be a reason to deviate", so again – calm down. Given that someone's now pointed us to MOS:POSTABBR, that leaves the question, when abbreviation is warranted as in an infobox, of whether the two-letter modern postal abbreviations should be used e.g. CA versus the older Calif. and so on; for non-US readers the latter gives them at least a fighting chance of figuring out what's what. But that's just off the top of my head.
EEng 20:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I am calm, and you should be too. I am not even contesting the use of abbreviations, as I said in the first statement. I merely said that others have contested this and have experienced the same editor behavior in response. the ANI is about how a user responds/behaves to content and guideline differences of opinion. It’s doubtful we are going to set/clarify guidelines in this discussion. The point is that there is not clear line that this user is correct, so it’s inappropriate to cast it that way. How we come to agreements about gray areas in guidance is a central part of how Wikipedia operates. If I just wanted to debate and clarify policy this isn’t where I would have taken it. Rikster2 (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • You said he is doing this via script? WP:BOTPOL should apply. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • First, to clarify what I'm actually doing. I make a lot of minor gnoming edits, and among those - not on their own but as part of a larger package of changes - I also expand US state abbreviations (in line with the MOS at MOS:POSTABBR) and remove the state where the city is well-known, according to the AP convention described at WP:USPLACE, which is used widely within WP. A reader gains nothing from the non-news that New York City is in New York State, or that Los Angeles is in California. I find the argument about visual inconsistency in a table pretty unconvincing - is a reader really going to find their understanding disrupted by the omission of the state from cities known worldwide like Houston, New Orleans, Miami, Chicago? Nor am I convinced by the argument that 'a basketball fan could easily see how widely a team travels for games by scanning states in the schedule table' - how many readers can locate relevant cities without reference to a map? And a trip from one side of a state to another can be far longer than to a neighbouring city in another state. In summary, Rikster2 may say I don't listen to objections - what that really means is that he and I have different opinions and I don't choose to stop making improvements simply because he doesn't like them. That said, I do generally try to avoid basketball-related articles, simply to avoid this sort of hassle. (In contrast, I've made a large number of similar changes to football-related articles - a question about whether this was acceptable was raised; only one editor seriously objected but gained no support from other editors). Colonies Chris (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • well, not really an “I don’t like it” case. More of a “I expect if someone is mass-implementing changes that they will stop doing so once a difference of opinion is raised about a non-consensus set of edits” thing. I am not the only editor who has talked to you about this issue over time and, as I pointed out to you in October, you never stopped making the edits in question long enough to have a discussion before continuing to move forward. Per WP:CYCLE, my typical experience has been that an editor would pause in the disputed editing to have the discussion and Drive to some sort of agreement. You never have done this. Also, while I question if ANI is the place to talk policy, there is no question that your propensity to remove State is not clearly in WP:USPLACE today. There is a reasonable discussion to be had as to if State should always be removed, but pushing through edits is not furthering it. I never said a reader can’t figure out Cleveland is in Ohio, but removing it from a list slows down the scannability of those tables. And, yes, states are important to college athletics - coaches are evaluated by how well they recruit their home state (which is harder to scan for the reader if removed from some). Just because YOU don’t think they are needed doesn’t mean there isn’t value for including State in some cases (like tables and infoboxes). Also, in my opinion, consistency of like pages matters for aetsthetics and general reading of like pages. Regardless, you act like there is a bright line guideline that you are enforcing where this is not the case and I am not the only editor to call you on it. Also, I hadn’t thought about it but User:Only in death is right about WP:BOTPOL. At that guideline it clearly states that part of the criteria in using scripts/bots is that edits being driven should only be performing tasks for which there is consensus. There is no consensus to remove State in every instance. Rikster2 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
If the state has that much importance, I suggest your priority should be to put it in a separate column in the relevant tables, and make it a sortable parameter. That would be easier to use for the purposes you describe, and the question of removal would not arise. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
That is worth discussing for schedule tables. Now I have a suggestion for you - just take the removal of State out of your script. It’s not a change for which there is clear consensus, has been disputed, and if you remove it you are making edits for which it seems like you have better backing from a policy perspective (like full State name vs. abbreviation). Would solve 90% of the issue. Rikster2 (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The same behavior can be seen at American football and ice hockey pages. Nobody is against removing the state in the text ("New York City" instead of "New York City, New York"), but tables and infoboxes are a completely different story. This has been objected not once and not twice, but Colonies Chris just ignores it. We list "City, State" for consistency reasons, and it should stay that way. It is very strange and not consistent when you see "Toronto" in one column, while other columns list "Toronto, Ontario", and people that are not editing Wikipedia might get confused and either remove the state from every instance containing it or re-add it. Furthermore, sometimes the bot he is using makes wrong edits. Such as, "GA" stands for "Goals against" on ice hockey's pages, but his bot corrects it to "Georgia", which is nowhere near the intended meaning. As for "If the state has that much importance, I suggest your priority should be to put it in a separate column in the relevant tables" – some tables are already huge so we do not need another column to make it even more problematic, and that is why some tables contain abbreviations. However, I do not really care about the removal of states' abbreviations, but common sense should be there when removing them. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

    • RE; inappropriate conversion of GA; when this happened, did you notify me about it? (No, you didn't.) If you had done so, three things would have happened (a) I would have fixed it (b) I would have apologised (c) I would have fixed my script. But since you didn't bother to notify me (just stored it up for later use against me, it seems) none of those things happened. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I have had a quickish look at their contribution history and it appears it does fall under BOTPOL due to the automated nature of the edits. Which requires consensus *before* making these edits by automation. Since I havnt seen any such consensus anywhere, I am going to page an experienced BAG member to take a look. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This discussion was archived with no administrator action or moderation. Now that the discussion was archived, the editor is back at it (note the removal of “Indiana” from “Indianapolis, Indiana”). And also, another editor has voiced concern with the practice. We need a call here. Should the script have to take out the provision removing State as has been suggested? Rikster2 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  • In previous comments, you have claimed that the state is important because of tabular consistency - but none of the changes I made in the article you link to were related to tables. You have also complained that you need the state to judge coaches' performance in recruiting home state players - but none of my changes concerned that either. Fine, bring in an admin if you like. I made about 65 improvements to that page, of which 6 involved removing the state on major cities - all entirely in accordance with guidelines, as I've described above. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Removing State after city is NOT MOS and there is NOT consensus to remove it in all cases. As has been pointed out, WP:BOTPOL applies and this should not be in your script. Also, I find it interesting that you waited until this discussion was archived to start running this script again after sitting out for awhile. What’s behind that? I want an admin to weigh in - you and I have gone as far as we are going to on this issue. Rikster2 (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Also, don’t pretend like some of the edits don’t deal with exactly the issue I was talking about. But the point is internal consistency (within an article or across like articles) of templates and infoboxes is certainly something that has value to many. I am frankly not concerned if I revert a number of edits I don’t disagree with in the process of reverting edits that we have discussed time and time and time again. Why is my time less valuable than yours? It takes me twice as much time to revert only the edits in dispute when you are able to just remove the disputed changes from your script (and you should). Rikster2 (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    • As I am the editor that most recently raised the concern on their talk page, I think Rikster2 has a point. It is not necessarily the fact that Colonies Chris is using the bot, but it is that they dispute when people question their use of it and sometimes seems to have a bit of a "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude about it. ("My edits reflect agreed community guidelines. I don't need to provide further justification. You need to have a clear reason for overriding those - so far, all I've seen is an appeal to 'consistency' and nothing to explain how this consistency is any help to our readers. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)" in response to other editors disagreeing with the removal to consistency in a table.) While most of their edits are great, I also think the bot should be subject to review. As I pointed out in This edit, the bot arguably made the league member table visibly worse, leaving all different styles of naming. There is no guideline about place names specifically for usage in list tables and infoboxes, except for where projects have agreed upon one, that I know of. Specifically for tables, I feel WP:NORULES should apply and just use common sense as most editors prefer the consistency in the tables. As pointed multiple times by multiple parties, I think we are just asking for a little more cooperation and less condescending reactions (calling our criticism "petty harassment") from Colonies Chris. Yosemiter (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Rikster, have you opened a discussion at an article or project talk page about this? ANI seems premature. And some of your reverts are quite puzzling, like this one where you edit summary misrepresents the change and moves back toward the less-preferred postal codes. Perhaps you can find a case where your version is defensibly better in some respect, and put the discussion there. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, over a year ago (in addition to the multiple times I have addressed this with the editor in question directly, links to at least three of these comments going back about 18 months are in the first statement). Also, the template documentation (example) shows City, State as preferred for basketball templates and infoboxes. However, I am not the person trying to force non-consensus edits using a script (which sounds like it goes against WP:BOTPOL) - it feels like the person who wants to add this to a script involving a number of other more non-controversial edits is the one who needs to Drive a consensus before doing so. Chris has never tried to start an article/policy conversation on this topic and in my opinion hasn’t undertaken a conversation on the matter in good faith even when brought to his talk page (did not stop making the same types of edits when called on it, even long enough to have a discussion). As for my edits - I didn’t at all misrepresent the edit. I said the removal of State wasn’t consensus or MOS and that he should fix his script and try again. The time/effort to pick through his script’s edits to fix the one piece that doesn’t have consensus should not be pushed to users like me just because someone is too lazy or stubborn to take the controversial item out and instead plows on. After 18 months, ANI is not at all premature. Rikster2 (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rikster2 What do you expect to happen in this ANI case? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I have already made the suggestion that Colonies Chris should be compelled to remove the part of his script that removes State from his script per WP:BOTPOL, as this is an edit type that does not reflect consensus and has been disputed many times by many editors. Rikster2 (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Youy do realise that you have accused me of both continuing to make edit despite your objections, and - as if I had some sinister plan - stopping making edits while it was under discussion here! Yes, I paused making those edits while this discussion was live. But when it ended up archived without reaching any conclusion, I resumed. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I don’t know about a sinister plan, but it is demonstrably true that you have continued to make these sorts of edits despite my (and other editors’) objections over many months. And you just said yourself that you stopped editing then resumed when this ANI was archived by a bot after 72 hours without comment. Is there a complaint in there somewhere? Rikster2 (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:AWBRULES states: "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale. @Colonies Chris: Please demonstrate that consensus exists for any further removal of states from tables and infoboxes. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

There is already a consensus, as evidenced by MOS:POSTABBR, WP:USPLACE and MOS:PN#Place_names. The fact that some editors chhoose not to accept that consensus doesn't invalidate it. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
POSTABBR is irrelevant as no one in this discussion is disputing use of full State name vs. abbreviation. The other two guidelines do NOT indicate consensus that State is dropped in all cases, including tables, templates and infoboxes were consistency is desired. This is like saying that “Bill Clinton” can never be referred to as “William Jefferson Clinton” in a list because the article is called “Bill.” If a template or list has a CIty, State format there is nothing in those guidelines that mandates (or even explicitly suggests) dropping State for the handful of cities that don’t list it in their article title. If you want the guideline to explicitly call this out, then the burden is on you to facilitate that discussion before plowing forward with hundreds of articles. You have made a significant assumption about what is and is not consensus here. Rikster2 (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Colonies Chris: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which includes WP:USPLACE, states: "These are advice, intended to guide, not force, consensus." Moreover, WP:PG reads: "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." As multiple editors have given similar good-faith rationales to keep the states, the WP:AWBRULES policy places the onus on you, the AWB operator, to gain broader consensus to follow the guideline for this case and disallow the "common sense" exception. What is the urgency to bypass policy to force an MOS change via automation? If there is consensus, the changes you desire will happen soon enough.—Bagumba (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: If an editor manually turned a table with a cities column from this:

Buffalo, NY
Raleigh, NC
New York City, NY
Philadelphia, PA

to this:

Buffalo, NY
Raleigh, North Carolina
New York City

on a highly viewed page such as the National Hockey League it would have been reverted in an instant. Your bot is making questionable stylistic edits to tables and infoboxes, while also making the good edits in prose. No one is arguing against POSTABBR. We are simply asking you to review your bot's edits because as seen in the above table, it is considered unacceptable by consensus. It is therefore creating more work for other editors because then we have to through and cleanup after your bot (much of which has fallen on Rikster2's interests, hence their frustration). Yosemiter (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I've looked into the NHL page that you complain of; it wasn't at first clear to me how some inconsistencies arose (e.g. "Buffalo, NY" on one line, but just a couple of lines below, "Sunrise, Florida", expanded from "Sunrise, FL". Then I realised that the source of the problem was the already-present inconsistency; the first was encoded as "[[Buffalo, New York|Buffalo]], [[New York (state)|NY]]" (two separate links, disregarding the advice at MOS:LINKSTYLE "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link. Consider rephrasing the sentence, omitting one of the links, or using a more specific single link") The example you provide above has the same internal inconsistency. So you're complaining that my actions have made visible your inconsistency and disregard of good practice. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Yosemiter appeared to be saying that your edits took a consistent format of using state postal codes and converted it to use a mix of postal codes (Buffalo, NY), fully expanded state names (Raleigh, North Carolina), and no state names at all (New York City). And you seem to be saying that your scripts were limited to producing garbage in, garbage out.—Bagumba (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Bagumba is correct, I was trying to point out your script, while correctly trying to fix POSTABBR, took NOTBROKEN and consistent links and a typically understandable format, and made it an ugly hodgepodge styles (I pointed out the four different versions that ended up on the page instead of 31, I know about the Sunrise expansion, I just used the Raleigh example instead). It was NOT inconsistent before, so not "already-present" (they all had the "improper" format you point out). It was something that could easily have been fixed, by you, if you actually reviewed your bot's edits (something that I ended up doing while keep it consistent and not using abbreviations). Yet you continue to argue that your bot is just fine and perfect. My complaint is that you are causing other editors to clean up after YOUR bot instead of just realizing and accepting that there is an issue. Yosemiter (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, cutting through all of the above: the "bot" Colonies Chris is running is AutoWikiBrowser. And WP:AWB rule number three states:

Do not make controversial edits with it. Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue; village pump, WikiProject, etc. "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale.

  • Q.E.D., these edits are controversial, and, therefore, according to the AWB terms of use, must be stopped until a consensus to make them is established, and by 'them' that is 'these specific edits, by Colonies Chris, using AWB' - i.e. the claims by Colonies Chris that "MOS:POSTABBR, WP:USPLACE, and MOS:PN#Place_names" give him consensus are not sufficient for these automated edits to continue. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with The Bushranger. Chris is no doubt acting in good faith but depending on AWB to get the job done is a bad idea. I've seen errors on numerous occasions, and I've seen controversial edits, on numerous occasions discussed on his talk page. I would go with The Bushranger, and perhaps currently limit Chris' AWB use to simple format fixes, typos etc, and not changing wikilinks etc for the time being. Whether Chris should then be allowed to use AWB going forward is another discussion. But to solve the current issue (which is recurrent) we should limit Chris' AWB scripts to nominal and completely uncontroversial changes. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • So, where are we with this? - Since Bushranger had his “admin hall ht” on with his comments is taking state removal out of the script the verdict here? I’m not going to let this fall off the page without resolution until there is closure, so I have to ask. Rikster2 (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    • It was in fact my intent to make that a resolution of the issue - I left it open to allow Chris to respond; he chose not to, so I'm going to go ahead and "properly" close this now. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with The Bushranger and The Rambling Man. These are controversial edits and should not be done with AWB. As for what happens next, someone will have to close this at some point and document the consensus - for the moment, I think that just requires waiting (and keeping the section open to prevent premature archiving). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • More: Expanding state abbrev w/o consensus Chris also continues to expand state abbreviations despite objections raised earlier to them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_College_football#Schedule_tables:_State_Abbreviations_vs_spelled_out. MOS:ABBR allows for abbreviations in tables, but Chris feels they can use their own judgement and continue with the disputed changes on AWB. They need to understand that tables can be treated differently from body text, and the AWB operator is responsibile for establishing consensus when there is a dispute.—Bagumba (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing from the congress IP[edit]

Today, an anonymous editor has disruptively edited pages Bears Ears National Monument and Knights Templar leaving rather inappropriate messages such as ...all sexual harassers in congress should resign... and other. This has been reflected on the bot page. This user is most likely trying to troll the bot, as he realized, that anything he does from the IP is going to go on Twitter. I believe the user should be blocked, as their actions compromise th bot. The editor also threatened to go to other IP addresses, in case they are blocked. Diffs - Knights Templar and Bears Ears National Monument - Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 17:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It honestly looks like garden-variety vandalism/trolling. I did send an email to the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee in the event a block might be warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I second this motion to block. The troll also accused a Nintendo character of starting ISIS. Mannydantyla (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
No edits for two hours - no need to block -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 18:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Not quite. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 21:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Different IP, same prefix. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The troll is back again. Different IP address, completely, not the same subnet at all. However the twitter bot is tweeting them out non-the-less. -Mannydantyla (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring and WP:OWN behavior[edit]

This user has been very persistent in replacing the images in this list with images they took, for example [10] and [11]. They have also been reverting other users' edits to the article without explanation, including readding information deemed unencyclopedic and removing citation needed tags without explanation. Attempts have been made to discuss on the article talk page and user's talk page, but the user has refused most attempts at discussion. There have been numerous 3RR violations, and two blocks were issued as well as a full protection of the article involved, but the edit warring has persisted. I'm requesting here that some sort of more extensive action be taken, whether it be an extended block or a topic ban. I have notified the user in question - meanwhile, pinging other users interested in the case: @Pi.1415926535, Mtattrain, and SportsFan007: – Train2104 (t • c) 00:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

> Admittedly, the user in question has contributed positively in some ways, such as removing much trivial information and providing some reasonable images, but once he/she started replacing almost every image and reverting any edit that did not agree with his/her edits, the line was crossed. Mtattrain (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

He just hit <SAVE>.
  • Tell me again why we have fancrufty articles on every model of bus in a given city (including notations on specific individual buses that are out of service because e.g. they were in an accident), on individual but stops, and so on? We even have an editnotice for this kind of thing: {{railfan editnotice}}. EEng 01:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@EEng: I created said editnotice in an attempt to stem the expansion of such content. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Not working, apparently. Do we have the technology to send a painful electric shock to these people when they hit <SAVE>? EEng 02:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── All electrical shocks aside, Olsen24 has shown no indication that they understand why they are being reverted, nor why much of the information they have been adding is trivial. I don't see them likely to suddenly start engaging productively, or stopping their habit of adding their own images. (I've dealt with a similar issue of vanity images on MBTA Bus, and that user also refuses to accept critiques of their photographs.)

Mtattrain, I think you need to calm down some, and you also need to think more about the relevance of the information you are adding. Lists such as these should be a high-level overview of a fleet. Production year, fuel type, total number of buses, and an indication of units saved in museum collections are appropriate for that. Powertrain details, daily updates of which buses are in service, and a listing of units removed from service due to accidents are not. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Dearchiving this as it has not been acted upon and the user's behavior continues. Forgive me if this is against ANI practice... – Train2104 (t • c) 17:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support block per OWN and repeated refusal to get the point. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think a long block is needed. But, I think that a block of about a week is needed, in addition to the implementation of a topic ban from bus-related articles if they edit war again in the next six months on bus articles. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC) Oops, forgot to read something. Anyways, I don't think a long block is needed; the only thing that is needed is a topic ban from buses, appealable in six months. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
This is about their uploading of grainy unneeded images, inability to communicate (even now, looking at their talk page they seem to be in denial about the quality of their images)) and editwarring. A block is needed here to stop this pattern of behaviour; past blocks have proven futile. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

> Pi.1415926535, I suppose that what I have been adding isn't needed, it is just very strange that such trivia is now being pointed. If administrator editors don't think of such information highly, though, I'll start removing the specific details. Mtattrain (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

>> I guess I've been venting too much steam over Olsen24, admittedly. To be fair, however, as many users have been stating, the mentioned user hasn't been contributing the best content. Mtattrain (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

>> Even with multiple (sometimes seemingly forceful) administrators warning user Olsen24, the user is failing to discuss on article talk pages. Someone should either let user Olsen24 know about the function of talk pages on articles, or take some other kind of action. Mtattrain (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Moscow metro - WP:RMT logic[edit]

The requested admin action, restoration of the accidentally deleted line article, has been done by Jenks24. Some titles may have been left at the WP:WRONGVERSION. The RFC on the most appropriate title conventions for these remains open at WP:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Russian railway line article titles; no need to repeat all that at AN/I. If SMcCandlish thinks short-term range blocks are needed, he should make that case separately; I advise against that as a dispute resolution strategy. Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 10 December 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.

Year-old consensus is "X Line" for Moscow Metro lines. There are 16 lines, cf. Category:Moscow Metro lines (one article page currently lost), each line has a category page, and a route-template. The line names are per convention used as disambiguator for station articles if "Stationname (Moscow Metro)" is ambiguous. Since non-Moscow Metro articles also link to these there might be 1000 occurences of these line names.

Then 2017-12-08 02:10 to 02:20 User:Dicklyon hopped in [12] and moved

A "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" was posted at WP:RMT, the names complying with year-old style were restored for:

2017-12-09 03:37 User:SMcCandlish hopped in and moved [14]

2017-12-09 03:58 User:AlexTheWhovian stepped in and moved Template:Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line RDT a second time to a name against year-old convention for Moscow Metro. [15]

User:Dicklyon is OK with restoring the page names as they were before his moves [16]. But User:AlexTheWhovian refuses to restore the names in the style that existed for years. Also he does not undelete the line article, despite being asked on his talk after he wrote at WP:RMT that he will deal with the pages.

What is "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" for if the single-handed controversial moves are not reverted? And how can English Wikipedia get back the article about the Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line (a line, not the station "Aviamotornaya")? (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that User:AlexTheWhovian resorted to remove content from the user talk page [17] (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
AlexTheWhovian is permitted to remove content from his talk page. I think this is the same dispute that SMcCandlish posted about recently at WP:VPP. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • RfC already opened at WP:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Russian railway line article titles, and cross-referenced to the ongoing essentially duplicate but earlier discussion there about Chinese railway lines. This ANI is basically a WP:TALKFORK. On the substantive matter: Some one-country wikiproject is not in a position to make up its own "rules" that directly conflict with policies and guidelines (see WP:CONLEVEL policy and WP:PROJPAGE). The fact that some obscure articles have had bad style, against the article titles policy and the Manual of Style, for a year or so doesn't magically make them immune to correction and does not indicate a consensus about them at all; that's just a WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:CONTENTAGE argument to avoid.

    What the vexatious anon is not telling you is that just over a day ago, "an" anon (likely the same party, but who knows) unilaterally moved these articles, via WP:RM/TR [18], to names that do not comply with WP:AT, WP:NCCAPS / MOS:CAPS, or MOS:DASH. Those were the actually controversial moves, but cannot easily be undone because the original titles were immediately changed from redirects to disambiguation pages. Dicklyon later corrected these title problems, then the anon (bouncing around on various IP addresses, mostly in the 77.179.*, 78.55.*, 85.180.*, ranges) challenged that as "undiscussed". People patching up a mistake someone else made is not the mistake.

    Regardless, given that the number of articles this would affect one way or another is larger than the four at issue here, and given that this is a WP:CONSISTENCY matter that should be resolved in concert with another ongoing RfC about similar names, the RfC linked above is place for the community to come to a consensus about this.

    PS: "Another" anon (in 80.171.*, and probably the same party), continues to push the Russian rail line overcapitalization moves at RM/TR as we speak [19]. This needs to stop, since it's an RfC matter now. Surely the same party (now in 92.231.*, and a bit earlier at is making WP:ICANTHEARYOU arguments at the RfC after they were already addressed at RM/TR. This is getting disruptive, even aside from the rapidfire IP-address hopping making it look like multiple editors (and avoiding WP:UWT warnings, {{DS/alert|at}} notices, and other usual process). This user was already warned by uninvolved parties they were being disruptive at RM [20], and also made repeated false accusations that those who disagree with this person are liars [21] including after the warning [22]; did it again here [23], and there was another of these somewhere, but I got tired of diffing.
     — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  06:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC); updated:  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  07:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Short-term range blocks requested: The disruption continues (as then, now with a barrage of WP:BLUDGEON text-walling to derail the RfC [24]. I've refactored this mess to the "Extended discussion" section where it belongs [25], but the anon will not comply and is flailing [26], and did it again [27], received a 3RR warning [28][29], but just hopped IPs to and did it again [30]. (At least there can no longer be any doubt they're all the same person.) The material is simply rehash of the points the anon has already made in the original !vote, and which (so far) 100% of RfC respondents are discounting. Further false accusations of dishonesty [31]  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  07:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It's continuing further, with a revert of part of the RfC itself (we're way beyond 3RR now), plus injections of the anon's "evidence" into the RfC wording [32], and yet another false claim I'm a liar [33], couched in WP:SANCTIONGAMING terms – believes it's okay to call other editors liars as long as the word "liar" isn't used. Additional IPs in use: and (that one to interleave personalized objections into the RfC intro [34]). It's time this was shut down. A complete mess is being made of this RfC by one WP:BLUDGEONer, and I would have a 3RR issue myself if I attempted to do anything further about it, so I ask an admin to refactor the anon's extraneous and redundant commentary into the "Extended discussion" section again, and remove the non-neutral material the anon injected into the RfC wording.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  08:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Anon (now as did it again, at least the 5th revert on the same material on the same page in the last couple of hours [35]. This is now a mandatory 3RR block.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  09:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a section named comments and to that policy/guideline specific subsections have been added. SMcCandlish moved that content downward. Re "yet another false claim I'm a liar" the provided diff showing the IP edit, does not contain such a claim. User:SMcCandlish claimed the untrue once again. The articles about Moscow Metro lived in peace - no move-warring. User:SMcCandlish hoppes in, makes false claims about capitalization, cf Category:Rail infrastructure in New York (state), Category:Monorails in the United States - a lot of upper case... (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Whatever excuses you think you have for revertwarring, they don't apply. WP:ANEW has been made aware [36] of this ANI thread, in lieu of opening a redundant ANEW form.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  09:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Moscow metro - WP:RMT logic (part 2)[edit]

  • To clarify what the argument is about, there seem to be these points:
    1. "Line" versus "line"; if a railway line goes to Xtown, is "the Xtown line" a proper name (the Xtown Line) or not?
    2. Hyphen versus en-dash versus em-dash: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes.
    3. Disambiguating when the same place has stations on two or more railway lines.
    4. And what else?
Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
That's the content dispute, which will be settled by the RfC. This ANI is about behavior. The anon opened it without an apparent focus (seemed to just be irritated about the situation), but has since then gone on a revert-warring and RfC-disruption rampage; the ANI is now about this behavior problem.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  12:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
So, this was pretty inevitable. The IP has a history going back about a month or so of running about making move demands in multiple places , assuming that what they wanted was utterly unimpeachable and then becoming a bit hostile when they don’t get their way.[37]. It seems the IP has become more assertive recently and moving to make pretty broad demands across the system. As soon as things didn’t quite go their way, the response has become a bit more hostile and uncivil ranging from unsubstantiated charges [38] to insults in edit summaries [39] to the generally disruptive edits on the RfC as noted above. It might be worthwhile for an experienced editor preferably with some knowledge of Russian topics to at least take a shot at mentoring the IP. In this case, I think we’ve had a case of giving an inch leading to taking a mile. Some early success in getting requests approved without much resistance created a bit of a sense of undeserved self-righteousness. Now we may just have to tug the leash a little bit. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 15:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

There are two ambiguous names involved, which were disambiguated by Anthony Appleyard (thanks a lot!):

User:Dicklyon later moved the pages again. This was opposed, since it introduced a new type of disambiguation "X line" instead of longstanding "X Line". User:Jenks24 restored - against year old consensus - the ambiguous names. If you want to change the naming system, go for it, but do it via discussion. As long as there is not agreement the old system should be used. User:Jenks24 - why don't you restore the current consensus way of naming for Moscow Metro stations? (talk) 16:59, 9 December 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.

Shiftchange's continual personal attacks[edit]

Blocked for two weeks to bring a halt to this pattern of disruptive editing. Shiftchange, disagreeing on content and/or opening SPIs's is fine - provided you have some evidence to back up your views. Unsupported accusations of undisclosed paid editing and propaganda are not fine, and eventually cross the line into personal attacks. Please tone down the rhetoric and lay off the accusations when you return. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Shiftchange is continually making nasty personal attacks against a number of users, alleging them of "paid editing" and/or baseless sockpuppet allegations for having disagreed with him about content issues. This has been progressively getting worse over the last couple of months, but it is starting to get out of hand. Today alone: [40] (against Kerry Raymond), [41] (against various editors), [42] (against me for the first time), [43] (against Kerry Raymond again). There was also a string of serious attacks against Kerry and others on Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board beginning on around 16 October which appear to have been removed from that page's edit history, and for which he was requested to stop at the time. His edit history over the last couple of months demonstrates an escalating history of lashing out with personal attacks (if not overtly, very thinly veiled) against anyone who disagrees with him, even people (as Kerry and I have) who have worked with him fine in the past.

He has also just launched a nonsense sockpuppet request against Kerry Raymond, having continually (and baselessly) alleged for some time that she is the sockmaster of B20097, a difficult conservative editor with whom she has absolutely nothing in common with, in edit histories, political views or otherwise. He's also been abusing Wikipedia's email function to send nasty messages about other editors, as I received one about Kerry some time ago (happy to share to admins if need be, but not posting here).

Admin Nick-D suggested earlier today that these warranted a block (but that he couldn't impose one himself due to past interaction with Shiftchange), and I agree that this is necessary and have gone on long enough. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a content dispute which might warrant discussion, but Shiftchange's accusations of paid editing appear baseless. Unless Shiftchange has additional evidence to present, or is willing to back down, administrative action appears to be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes. we must discuss the propaganda, intensely. The quotation of political statements. Its so pure and obvious. This is what I have been doing, discuss the propaganda, intensely. That hasn't happened adequately, so I have escalated my response, demonstrating what I know. We can still see the neutrality tag on Safe Schools Coalition Australia. Still unresolved. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Based on my experience on American Politics, there are always people who will make partisan edits without pay. Separately, your statements are somewhat incoherent. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • There's nothing prohibiting filing SPIs (if anything, it will most likely disprove his accusations), but Shiftchange, you must immediately stop these baseless accusations. Keep such comments/accusations/reports on WP:COIN, where they belong, and stop WP:HARASSING other editors with these accusations and aspersions, either on-wiki or off-wiki. Pinging Nick-D. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
As noted above, I think that Shiftchange should be blocked for repeatedly making baseless accusations of paid editing against good faith editors and disrupting articles. This has been a long-running problem, with attempts by multiple editors asking them to stop it being unsuccessful - I'd include diffs to examples from the October discussion noted above, but the edits were oversighted by @Mailer diablo:, which by itself provides an indication of how out of line the comments were. Such accusations are among the most serious kinds of criticism which can be made against established Wikipedia editors, and Shiftchange is making them recklessly. For instance, in this case they're accusing The Drover's Wife of being a "paid operative" posting "propaganda" for reverting their disruptive attempts to remove a simple and neutral summary of a political party's policies (example) They are also threatening to turn up in person to disrupt a Wikimedia meet up to raise this issue [44] which seems to be a further and potentially quite serious escalation. Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Just to add to the above as I'd missed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kerry Raymond. This report started by Shiftchange is an utterly baseless slur. There are no similarities between the editing patterns of the two accounts, and Kerry is pretty much the definition of a Wikipedia editor (and Wikimedia contributor more generally) in good standing. This report is also a significant escalation, and grounds for a block in its own right. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
How can someone threaten to turn up at a meetup and have a discussion about paid editing? - Shiftchange (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This is how you threatened to turn up at a meetup and have a discussion about paid editing. Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
After that we talk about how to systemically remove the propaganda from our articles according to our policy of what Wikipedia is not. Why is that threatening to you? Can you see our policy on soapboxing? Not all expression, some is excluded. Banned and excluded from inclusion unlike my attendance at the meetup. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
If I didn't have a COI in the sense that I know Shiftchange in person and have socialised on numerous occasions with Kerry, I would be blocking for this and the recent sordid history of aspersions as outlined above by User:The Drover's Wife. There's nothing wrong with raising an SPI case, but there is something wrong with raising one simply to harass with no valid basis, as it is occurring here. I am very disappointed by this turn of events, as until recently Shiftchange was an editor who I held in very high regard. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC).
  • From the SPI: [45] "The editor personally admitted it to me, I don't have diffs" - good grief, is this actually meant to be taken seriously? That's...I dunno, like the inverse of WP:BROTHER or something, where the little brother says "he did it!". I'm honestly speechless after reading that, and the linked "proposal". - The Bushranger One ping only 07:11, 9 December 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: nagualdesign[edit]

OP blocked, no more action required.--Malerooster (talk) 18:44, 9 December 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.

Posting YouTube video of superman movie instead of a bots help video. TheDeliveryGuy (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Not an incident, just a joking response to a nonsensical question that is probably {{minnow}}-worthy but nothing more. To be honest, given you contributions so far, you are not going to have a bot approved. And since you ran directly to ANI within 73 minutes of your first post, have you previously edited under any other accounts? - The Bushranger One ping only 09:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
No other account associates with this IP TheDeliveryGuy (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Then the issues is that linked to this is nagualdesign is linked to other businesses in California and second proof is he may be a sock puppetry linked to this also there more evidence against him that he may have a bunch of copyright warning in his talkpage. I will appreciate Every comment in this section. TheDeliveryGuy (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The guy in California is called Joseph Bortoli (not sure of the spelling). My name's also Joe, and I also trade as nagualdesign, but I'm from the UK. Joseph and I have exchanged emails in the past, many years ago. It's all very fascinating, I'm sure. The sockpuppet thing is just ridiculous, and not worth commenting on. There are no copyright warnings on my talkpage, only discussions about me, a self-employed designer, asserting my own copyrights. I hope you appreciate this comment. Now shoo! nagualdesign 10:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately I'm getting a strong sense that WP:CIR may be relevant here. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I am commenting because this kerfuffle started on my talk page while I was asleep. I share The Bushranger's concerns about the OP's competency. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:22, 9 December 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.

YMblanter abusing tools to subvert consensus to enforce his viewpoint, rude, belligerent, etc.[edit]

OP and the other IPs in the /64 range blocked for three days. If they resume their disruption after the block expires, please let me know on my Talk page or by pinging me somewhere else. I see no reason to leave this thread open. If editors want to have a good faith discussion about BLP issues, they can do so on the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 9 December 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.

on Death of Daniel Shaver, user YMblanter abuses his tools to enforce the viewpoint of 1 editor against a consensus, claiming to restore to "good version" that only one editor supported, against 5 times as many that supported the actually good version. Refused to give reasons for his administrative actions. Generally rude and belligerent; abuses his tools and they should be removed before he can do more harm. Admitted to giving no fucks about consensus.2600:1017:B404:BD76:E0B5:71EF:2B77:1EF6 (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the diff, to be specific.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Protection was probably warranted. I see no reason to assume it wasn't done in good faith, but the edit summary of "reverted to the last good version" leaves you open to questions like this.—Bagumba (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Ymblanter's protection was perfectly warranted. I was literally on the page history about to do the same exact thing, and Ymblanter beat me to it. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you would have restored to the version other than the one that the silent edit warring IP had 4 RR'ed to restore against multiple editors, and which is entirely uninformative...2600:1017:B404:BD76:50C:5EA7:4313:48DE (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I see loads of edit warring and zero attempts to discuss on the talk page, protection seems appropriate to me. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Good (indeed necessary) revert by Ymblanter, and if the OP can't see that the pre-revert version was a mess of BLP violations, it was necessary to protect the article as well. --bonadea contributions talk 10:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
4 editors had restored that version; one vandal kept deleting it who was edit warring. Admin swoops in, and sides with the vandalizing edit warrior who had reverted to that version more than 3 timesover the 4 editors who had no made one more revert each. How does that possibly make sense? What is worse, he refuses to explain his actions. Consesnsus was for the version that this so-called admin reverted. He instead decided to reward the single, vandalizing edit warrior who kept deleting content without explanation over the objections of multiple editors and who remained within the rules. 2600:1017:B404:BD76:90A0:EEF:7868:DDA8 (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WP:THEWRONGVERSION - The Bushranger One ping only 10:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I indeed almost always keep the WP:THEWRONGVERSION, but since in this case there were heavy BLP violations in the last version, I reverted it, and this is exactly what pisses the OP off.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
"So-called admin" is great. I should start using it. "So-called Wikipedia editor". "So-called IP user".--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
And yes, the "four editors" were restoring a BLP mess, and "the single vandalizing edit warrior" was following policy. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
here (again) are the Diffs of multiple editors restoring this material, a single tome each, all of which was ignored so the single vandal who kept deleting well-sourced material with cosnensus for inclusion and reverted at least 4 times can whitewash the article and make it entirely uninformative ny the deletion of content:

The IP started personal attacks: [46] (see the edit summary).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
May be it is time to block them and to close the thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
“hey asshole” in response to your rudeness is not an “attack”. Again, you were rude. You intentionally deleted my comment with the diffs. Still trying to evade scrutiny and abuse your tools, are we? Your conduct in this thread is deplorable. 2600:1017:B404:BD76:90A0:EEF:7868:DDA8 (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thanks everyone for the “humor” post. I guess it doesn’t really matter what version the admins revert to, so they shouldn’t bother to read the page history or assess which side has consensus first. They should just do what they like. Is that really the message?2600:1017:B404:BD76:90A0:EEF:7868:DDA8 (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, you were pointed out to WP:BLP several times already, starting from my talk page. You just prefer not to listen.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
what exactly violates BLP here? You’ve never said. And even on the theory there were 1-2 BLP violations, why not delete them individually, rather than the entire text added by several contributors? Surely even if there were some BLP violations, you can’t possibly think that the entire text added by multiple editors in several sections of the article was a BLP violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B404:BD76:90A0:EEF:7868:DDA8 (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The only citation in that "well-sourced material" that was removed in the diff in question was from, which is not a reliable source. I'd strongly suggest you drop the stick before it comes back around on you. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
wait. Vox is not a reliable source? Even so, I could find hundreds of sources saying the same thing. There is widespread outrage over this verdict and the way that dictator Ymblanter’s version presents it is a sad embarassment to the project. 2600:1017:B404:BD76:90A0:EEF:7868:DDA8 (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
And yet you didn't, you kept reverting to a non-RS, BLP-violating version. "Widespread outrage" isn't a reliable source either. WP:BLP is the single most bright-line policy on Wikipedia behind WP:V, and if an article is violating BLP there is no such thing as edit warring to remove the violating content. In a case where multiple editors were edit-warring to restore it, protecting the non-violating version is the exact opposite of "a sad embarassment to the project". - The Bushranger One ping only 11:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I would have thought the key policy was "inform the readers." No one who reads that article would learn anything about it if they didn't go read the sources themselves. The version of the lead which was restored is certainly an embarrassment, in my view. For example, this is an article titled "Death of Daniel Shaver" which doesn't even mention he was killed in the lead, for crying out loud. It just says he was "shot." How quaint. 2600:1017:B404:BD76:50C:5EA7:4313:48DE (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, the version you insist on also does not say he was killed. It says he was executed.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, let us ask them: @Tobias994:, @Alpha3031:, why did you revert the text to versions containing blatant BLP violations and strongly non-neutral language?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, It looked like an semi-accidental deletion to me, as the revision I reverted left a dangling "Tex" and there was no edit summary. I didn't revert the second time it popped up on my feed since it looked like more objective language that time. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 11:18, 9 December 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.

Saoirse Ronan[edit]

No action necessary, and not the right venue. This kind of dispute needs to be resolved by talking, not templating; most certainly not AN/I matters. Alex Shih (talk) 18:12, 9 December 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.

Davey2010 wants to revert to a poor version of the Saoirse Ronan article as opposed to a much-better version for reasons I can't fathom. When warned at this talk page, this was his abusive edit summary. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

But it is not appropriate for you to just template him again after reporting here while you don't even notify him of this thread. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely. This is clearly a content dispute; an editor with six years' tenure who doesn't know either that or what WP:DTTR is (over a phenomonally petty reason, might I add), should probably either read up on WP:BOOMERANG for wasting all our time. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 17:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I presume that the bigger lesson to learn on Wikipedia is to say fuck off to other editors and then walk away scot-free. Gotcha! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
But it's appropriate to tell another editor to "fuck off"? And it's not okay for me to then tell that editor to not use personal attacks? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Torah has been adding various stuff to the article which was disputed (and she then was blocked for edit warring), I asked them to go to the talkpage to discuss their edits, I will accept fault for not adding your edits back the first time round but other than that I don't believe I've done anything wrong here, Also you were pointed to WP:DTTR so the very next thing you shouldn't do is template me!, This is a content dispute and as such belongs on the articles talkpage. –Davey2010Talk 18:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not Torah. You can't blindly revert me, and then ask me to fuck off, when I call you out on your mistake. That's just not done. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I reinstated what I believed to be your edits, Well I can if you're going to template me with an Only Warning template, You didn't call me out on my mistake tho - had you said "Dave could you explain your reverts?" I then would've been more than happy to have a conversation with you but if you're only going to slap a pathetic warning on my talkpage without even trying to discuss it first then quite rightly I'm going to tell you to fuck off, Personal messages go along way in my book and they more helpful than a templated warning. –Davey2010Talk 18:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Appropriate or not, it's hardly unsurprising :) Civility is not just about 'fuck' /et al,; see WP:CIV: Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with. Equally uncivil, some would say. Worth condidering alternatives, defintely. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
It would have been a surprise if we treated others with a bit more respect. A warning template v/s an abusive message. If you consider the former to be a bigger infraction than the latter, then that's the big problem. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:10, 9 December 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.

Actions by User:Ckruschke may be in breach of WP:OWN[edit]

OP has retired. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:16, 10 December 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.