Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive973

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Another WP:NOTHERE[edit]

Blocks fell. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:53, 29 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:Hamas Hamas Muslims to the gas new account with only one edit to my talk page: [1] Seraphim System (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Reported at WP:UAA. Given it's a weekend morning UTC (and still overnight in the US) it might get faster attention over there. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 10:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Also this now: User:Turks are bloodthirsty, genocidal savages [2] posting over and over again, my talk page urgently needs to be locked down Seraphim System (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I've protected your talk page for 12 hours, balancing 'enough time so they can get bored bashing their heads against the wall and go away' with 'we do our durndest to never protect a talk page'. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
The Bushranger, would you mind revoking talk page access for the second account? Jiten talk contribs 10:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. If anyone else isn't in a fruitcake coma, can they look into blocks for the underlying IPs? - The Bushranger One ping only 10:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey, The Bushranger, watch it with the gay jokes. EEng 03:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I already did. Unsurprisingly, the accounts are using proxies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Sockpuppet ip 110.77.181.148 is now edit warring at admin's talk page. [3]. It kind of sounds like past messages I've gotten from JarlAxle. Seraphim System (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I just blocked that IP, but for a week because I have no idea how long it's going to be useful. NinjaRobotPirate, this IP was previously hit by our lovely never-make-an-edit admin, Procseebot. Do you know how to look up whether it's still a proxy? Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
List it at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
This test is a usually a good first step. Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Guide to checking open proxies has good advice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Those are some damn handy links. Thanks! —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Another IP sock 123.185.128.87 Tornado chaser (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, this IP geolocated to northern china, while the other one was from Bangkok. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Blocked as an open proxy. Please use {{iplinks}} when reporting IPs (and {{userlinks}} for editors) - it makes it much easier to check the history. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 01:10, 26 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.

Simple refusal to BRD by LlywelynII[edit]

OP asked to close this discussion, no admin action required at this point. --Malerooster (talk) 22:37, 28 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.

User LlywelynII made some bold bold changes to Nanjing, imposing US ENGVAR. The article had no agreed engvar. He refuses to revert per WP:BRD while giving weak justification and go-slow debate on the talk page. The WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard requires extensive talk page discussion, where the user is (so far) not being very obliging, hence my arrival here. The user has some history imposing his engvar. This behaviour is just irritating. Batternut (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Batternut, isn't taking someone to ANI so quickly over the spelling of "theatre" a trifle excessive? What administrative action are you proposing because you think another editor is "irritating"? This looks like a garden variety content dispute to me, and it looks like you have made very little effort to resolve the matter collaboratively. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Cullen328, I had a longer reply that got emu'd by your post, but it was along the same lines. See, eg, Talk:Hangzhou where my application of the same brightline test resolved the page in favor of British English. It's just there to keep the page clean and, if there are substantive reasons or strong consensus, that's when it's time to ignore that policy. I haven't seen any substantive discussion in favor of British English or even seeking a new consensus from Batternut yet, although I raised those options and he may have posted on some common Nanjing editors' talk pages and I just didn't see that. — LlywelynII 09:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Why don't you answer the questions on the talk page? ie "Oxford spelling "-ize" does not establish American spelling". Quick to talk here, of course, but slow actually discussing the substantive point. Must we conduct the discussion here instead? Batternut (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I find entrenched battling about English variations to be both counterproductive and tendentious. Personally, I would not care a whit if somebody from the UK transformed my American spellings into British equivalents. Go for it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
So do I. Hence discussion before actions is always better. They are not my spellings, btw - I have only edited the page once before. Batternut (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
posted on some common Nanjing editors' talk pages - evidence please!! The place for this discussion is Talk:Nanjing, which is the only place I have posted (other than LlywelynII's talk page). Batternut (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) While noting that I may have been quick coming here, the editor has been very active elsewhere (see his contributions) while ignoring the talk page discussion. The practice of being quick to revert but slow to discuss while one's version of an article remains current, in addition to imposing one's own ENGVAR, is not in the spirit that I hope for at least. I don't know what action to take - any recommendations anyone? Batternut (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Whilst I am unimpressed with LlywelynII's editing patterns, the article should indeed be in US English; it's earliest incarnations were neutral (i.e. no words with any difference, although a "z" in recognis/ze), but by 2004 it was written in US-ENG. It's not a big deal, really. Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
No big deal indeed. I'm no expert at engvar spotting, I just like to see things discussed properly. Batternut (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Admin Cullen328's advice "Go for it." sounds like freedom to change spellings regardless. No encouragement to bother with the talk page, and little wonder none of the user's 30 edits since did further that discussion... Batternut (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Please reread my comment, Batternut. I was giving permission for anyone to change my personal spelling, not to engage in disruptive changes in general. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. Batternut (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I've stopped watching the articles that this user is busy with. This discussion can be closed. Batternut (talk) 16:51, 28 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:Tgeorgescu ignoring WP:PROXY[edit]

OP blocked as a sock of a well-established puppeteer. Favonian (talk) 22:21, 28 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 am a Chinese resident and therefore am forced to use proxies. I have multiple times explained that WP:PROXY says users like myself can edit via proxies.

I quoted the following relevant section

"Open or anonymising proxies, including Tor, may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked. No restrictions are placed on reading Wikipedia through an open or anonymous proxy."

He doesn't seem to have the competence to understand though. 169.239.20.27 (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be edit-warring systematically, using various proxies etc., on the Irish slaves myth article; and now you resort to personal attacks against one of your opponents. This is not gonna end well. Favonian (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Systematically? How? Regardless that is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand here. There is already a discussion at the edit warring noticeboard. Can we keep this focused on the issue at hand here?169.239.20.27 (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I believe it is the case that the IP may not understand that his edit warring does not qualify as a legitimate use. The IP had been reported by Tgeorgescu before this thread was opened and I suggest it be closed on the resolution of that request which I have little doubt will include an IP block. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Can we please actually address the issue at hand here? The issue being the question of me being allowed to edit.169.239.20.27 (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually the issue at hand is your conduct as an editor, including your edit warring. I strongly urge you to read all the relevant guidelines and policies so that when you return to editing you will be less likely to be reported and possibly/probably blocked again then. John Carter (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
User:John Carter there is already a discussion at the edit warring noticeboard about that. THis discussion is about proxies. 169.239.20.27 (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
May I strongly suggest that you review all the relevant guidelines and policies again which indicate that the conduct of all involved can reasonably be discussed at an ANI which includes your edit warring and your dubiously competent grasp of the application of PROXY. John Carter (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
User:John Carter Its better to keep this discussion focused on the proxies because there is already a discussion at another noticeboard about that. If you wish to discuss edit warring please leave your comments there. Regardless I am not seeing much discussion about proxies which is why I came here. Yous are useless.169.239.20.27 (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Just because you may choose among several proxies after one of the proxies got blocked, it does not mean that you would be exempt from WP:3RR. Especially when we hear quacking. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Is there any good reason the IP is not yet blocked for socking and edit-warring?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I just protected Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Ymblanter Do you have any comments to make on the use of proxies by Chinese residents?169.239.20.27 (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 Done, blocked 31h.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Not arguing with the IP block which was good but more than a few of Tgeorgescu's reverts invoked DENY or SOCK. Were those legitimate? --NeilN talk to me 21:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

This was clearly the same IP with a team of Tgeorgescu's and FULBERT reverting them. Whereas none of them seems to have overstepped 3RR, this definitely does not belong to best practices, especially since the talk page discussion was ongoing.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The proxy hopper is User:Apollo The Logician, who is banned. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you zzuuzz. --NeilN talk to me 22:05, 28 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.

Editor spamming business AfDs with useless !votes[edit]

Editor blocked by Guy, no more action required. --Malerooster (talk) 22:40, 28 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'd like for an admin to take a look at the editing history of Hey you, yeah you! (talk · contribs · count · logs), who appears to have serious competency issues. This editor primarily participates on business AfDs, which he spams with the same basic deletion rationale. Ironically, this spammed rationale is that the articles should be deleted because they are spam/promotional. See, for instance: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. This editor keeps using those words, but I do not think they mean what he thinks they mean. Consider also this !vote, in which he dismiss the sources provided by Northamerica1000, but then misidentifies the article subject as a restaurant instead of a supermarket. This glaring error prompts NA1K to rightly question whether HYYY actually looked at the sources. While the AfD problems are bad enough, the editor has also resorted to harrassing NA1K with talk page warnings and involving himself in NA1K's editing disputes. HYYY explains on his own user page that he is a returned editor who created a new account not because he lost his old password, but it is fair to wonder whether perhaps his old account was blocked for this kind of disruption. Lepricavark (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Blocked per WP:NOTHERE, WP:NPA and WP:POINT. If he'd like to explain the facts and calm down a bit perhaps he could be unblocked, but for now this is a waste of everyone's time. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow, that was fast! Thank you for taking decisive action to eliminate the disruption. Lepricavark (talk) 22:23, 28 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.

Is a histmerge needed at Language Creation Society?[edit]

Article has been nuked. Since this discussion concerns a free mix of good faith contributors and those with an obvious COI, and the locus of dispute no longer exists, I am closing it, on the basis that any further drama from the society's founders and members can be handled tactically. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 30 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.

Last year, the Language Creation Society article got deleted at AfD, then at DRV, which endorsed the AfD but draftspaced the article and required AfC acceptance before recreation. The draft was deleted via G13 at the beginning of this year. Yesterday, I noticed that the Language Creation Society article had been recreated, containing content that was substantially similar to earlier versions of the deleted article. I tagged it for G4, it was deleted, which was then reversed for some reason... which was then stuck back into userspace, tagged for AfC, and then accepted about a half hour later. Then Draft:Language Creation Society was restored for some reason. While the LCS article is at AfD again, I think a histmerge with the draft may be required because it's pretty clear there is creative influence from the old article, and both articles have received substantial edits from current and former LCS board members and individuals with financial connections to LCS. Any input would be welcome. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Um... there HAS to be some off Wiki canvasing going on in that AFD. For example, User:Zompist, an editor with a handful of edits in the last FIVE YEARS suddenly comes in to vote keep? I don't buy it. There's some shenanigans going on, and we need an administrator to look into this. --Tarage (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, there's something weird happening here. Isn't the AfC backlog like two months long? How did this go from undeletion and userspacing, to submission for AfC (without the article creator requesting it), to approved and mainspaced in 30 minutes (and by the same person who submitted it to AfC)? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I realize that this is the holidays are folks are off enjoying the outside world but please, can any administrator look in on this? We have admitted COI issues both with the article's creation and voting. This is not at all okay. --Tarage (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A history merge does not appear to be necessary - the current writeup is very different from the draftified one. Plus there is the WP:PARALLELHISTORIES problem. No comment on anything else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing[edit]

I'm growing concerned about the conduct of Pigsonthewing, aka Andy Mabbett, in connection with this article. I appropriately tagged the article with {{coi}}, which Andy is already edit warring to remove. Given there is a talk page thread, this removal is plainly inappropriate. Andy almost immediately banned me from his user talk page when I notified him that his removal was inappropriate. Given Andy's very, very long history of conduct issues, I think some inquiry into his conduct here is appropriate before it grows out of hand. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 10:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course you're concerned - you don't like people pointing out that you're applying a COI tag contrary to that template's own guidelines for use, even doing so again after being advised to read said guidelines; you don't like being called out for tagging the talk pages of regular editors; you don't like being called out for your baseless insinuations on the article's deletion discussion. You know that by rising an issue here, admins will examine your own conduct and edit warring ([11], [12], [13]), right? Oh, and I told you not to post on my talk page, which you promptly did again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
See Talk:Language Creation Society. You improperly removed the template after that section was created, and then continued to cite the guidance (not really guidelines) for removal of article maintenance templates. I am very concerned about your conduct in this matter, Andy. Calling my notices on your user talk page "trolling" is hardly appropriate. I will also note that I am required to notify you of this discussion. Your nonbinding WP:KEEPOFF doesn't trump that. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 10:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that Andy has now violated 3RR at Language Creation Society. Diffs: [14], [15], [16], [17]. There is no exception to 3RR for removing maintenance templates, even if Andy is correct that I had not created a talk page thread to discuss the COI problems on that article at the time of the first revert (though they were definitely under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination), and I had absolutely corrected that problem before the second revert). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 10:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This is extremely unsatisfactory. User:Pigsonthewing, I have restored the COI template until either the talk page discussion resolves the matter or it is considered in the course of this discussion (as part of a behavioural rather than content discusion). But you are clearly edit-warring over it, and WP:WTRMT does not support your position: even if you did think "that the template did not belong when placed or was added in error... discussing the matter with the original placer of the template is advised." Since you a) do not appreciate templates, and b) clearly know exactly what constitues edit-warring, may we asume you do not require the usual procedural {{uw-ew}}? >SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Mendaliv has added the COI tag four times and Pigsonthewing has removed it four times. In neither case is the behaviour satisfactory. It is worth noting, though, that the first removal of the template by Andy was justified because Mendaliv had not started a discussion on the talk page – in contravention of the instructions for it use. My advice at that point would have been to to start a discussion about the template on talk, per BRD, rather than re-adding the content which had been challenged. Nevertheless, we are where we are, and I still think the proper course of action is to attempt to resolve such differences on the article talk page, which had been looking decidedly bare until my attempt to ask for some clarification of the perceived problems. I am disappointed that experienced editors are resorting to ANI so quickly over an issue (the COI tag) that has not even been raised on the article page. --RexxS (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
My first addition wasn't a revert. WP:3RR was violated here by Andy and Andy alone. And I brought this to ANI because Andy left me no choice, having given me a WP:KEEPOFF warning and having subsequently continued to edit war to remove the COI template despite the presence of a COI discussion at the talk page. And on top of that, Andy knew full well what the complaint was about simply based on his participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination), he could've participated at the talk page had he looked for the discussion. Andy knows better than to violate 3RR. This isn't something that's fixed by waving your finger at both of us. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
And just to demonstrate that this isn't an issue with me alone, just today Andy was carrying on his month-long edit war over at Stage works by Franz Schubert (Today: [18], [19]; Dec. 4: [20], [21], [22]; Nov. 30: [23], [24]), which edit war formerly included Template:Schubert stage works (Nov. 30: [25], [26]). This has to stop. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I in no way condone Andy's edit warring, but you don't get to excuse yourself so easily. I remain seriously disappointed by such a respected and experienced editor as yourself adding the same content to the page four times. If that's not also edit-warring, I don't know what is. The moment your COI tag was challenged, you should have been on the talk page, explaining why the tag was needed – something that you still have not done. "Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other {{POV}} tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame or to "warn the reader" about the identities of the editors." What are the "significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement" and why haven't you provided that information in a thread on the talk page? I genuinely hope that the only sanction for you that will come out of this is my "finger-waving", because (like Andy's) I believe your intentions are good, but FFS carry them out properly. --RexxS (talk) 12:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
As I have explained above and at the talk page, the discussion was already well underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination), something which Andy full well knew. Was Andy technically correct in that there was no discussion at the current talk page? Perhaps, but definitely not in spirit. Andy's action was to exploit a technicality in something that isn't even a guideline. Was what I did incorrect? Perhaps as a matter of procedure. Was it wrongful or cause prejudice to any ongoing discussion or debate? Hell fire no. Let's drop the "a pox on both your houses" routine. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Let's not. The purpose of templating is to bring more opinions and editors to a discussion about an issue. An uninvolved editor is going to see a discussion about the effects of COI on the article at the talk page, where it belongs, not at some discussion on an AfD page. I understand that when you're as involved in an issue as you have become, it's difficult to see how it looks from an outsider's perspective, but the injunction on {{COI}} is not just technical, it's practical. When someone sees that template, they are linked to the discussion at the talk page. You know about the AfD, but it's by no means obvious to the outsider that you're carrying out the debate on a completely different page. I had to ferret about for some time to get a complete picture after coming from Andy's talk page, where you'd dropped a completely inappropriate "Welcome to Wikipedia" template on the page of an editor with 14 years' tenure. What on earth were you thinking? --RexxS (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
What injunction on {{COI}} are you talking about? There's a non-binding, non-policy guidance page that says if there's no discussion go ahead and remove the template. That's not an invitation to break 3RR as Andy did. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── And in response to your question about why I used a level-1 user warning template, I decided the least confrontational method in this case was to proceed through the traditional user warning template series. And, if made necessary (whether by continued disruptive removals of article maintenance templates or other misconduct), Andy could be taken to WP:AIV for continued disruptive editing past a final warning. This is why I used a level-2 template after Andy continued to disruptively remove the template. By the way, you'll also note that Andy immediately began to refer to my warnings as "trolling", which I believe is typically considered to violate WP:NPA. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

  • User:Pigsonthewing has also attempted to take this discussion into the well-known cul-de-sac otherwise known as my talkpage; the relevant section is here. Just FAYI. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 14:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Pigsonthewing and Mendaliv: Consider this a warning for both you. Pigsonthewing You are being warned for violating WP:3RR. You should have brought this issue to the talk page of the article, or to ANI if necessary instead of warring the tag from the page. Mendaliv You are being warned for edit warring and not following process. If the tag is being removed address the reason why before simply re-instating it. If there is no article discussion page on this issue, the tag has no place being there, outside editors are not likely going to find that discussion at an AfD.—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 14:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • If an editor with over 10 years of tenure on en.wiki is accepting these type of outright spams and edit-warring to remove valid COI tags, sigh....Winged BladesGodric 16:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
    • The article is not "outright spam", and the COI tag - which is still on the article - is not valid there according to its own documentation. The "substantially similar to earlier versions" claim at the head of this section has also been debunked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
      • What are you talking about "debunked"? Where did I say in this section that they were substantially similar? I said there was evident creative influence between the versions, in other words that the new article appeared to be derivative based on its provenance, insofar as LCS-affiliated individuals made substantial edits to each other. Thankfully, Jo-Jo Eumerus came up with an acceptable alternative: Redirecting the old draft to the current article. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Verbatim quote from your post: "Yesterday, I noticed that the Language Creation Society article had been recreated, containing content that was substantially similar to earlier versions of the deleted article.". Debunked by in this comment by Jo-Jo Eumerus: "the current writeup is very different from the draftified one". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Well that's embarrassing, I misread my own post! Facepalm Facepalm I've made so damn many posts today on this ridiculous subject. My point wasn't that the new article was a copyvio of the old one, but that there was evident creative influence such that I believed attribution may be required. That's why I was talking about a histmerge up there. Jo-Jo disagreed, and was clear that it would be a problem, so I accepted that. Moreover, the old draft was redirected to the new page, which I understand to be an acceptable non-deletion outcome. Not as clean an attribution chain as I think it could have, but whatever.
            In any event, the article at present is far better than it was at the start of this debacle. A great deal of the crufty bits have been peeled away. And, I'll admit, it's a hell of a lot better than the old draft that prominently featured LCS's mission statement and had a section discussing the professional services they provided the public. So definitely not as spammy as the old version the LCS folks created. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Improper COI tagging[edit]

@Mendaliv, Tarage, Pigsonthewing, Serial Number 54129, RexxS, Winged Blades of Godric, and Cyberpower678:

Mendaliv has tagged Language Creation Society with COI. However, when challenged to present even a single example of a substantive non-neutral edit, they either refused to do so or admitted there was none.

I request that either:

  1. the tag be justified, per the COI template's clear admonitions; see my challenge to do so on the discssion page;
  2. Mendaliv remove the tag and publicly apologize for the false insinuation of unethical behavior; or
  3. appropriate disciplinary action be taken against Mendaliv.

See also discussion above. Sai ¿? 18:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

For crying out loud, it's Christmas Eve. I don't have time for this right now. Wikipedia is not an instant gratification website.
Suffice it to say that multiple individuals at the ongoing AfD on your organization's article agree that there are significant concerns with your organization's editing of that article. Honestly, this discussion should be at WP:COIN anyway. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Nobody said when you have to answer. And maybe you could consider your own impact on others' holidays.
In any case, it's very simple: put up evidence of non-neutrality, or retract the improper tag and apologize. Insinuations without substantiation are not ethical. Sai ¿? 18:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:NPA is actually policy here. Calling me unethical would seem to violate it. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I described an unethical behavior — one that you can easily choose to correct. I don't know you and said nothing about you personally. Calling you out for it is not ad hominem. Sai ¿? 18:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
It is indeed Christmas Eve. However, you were asked about this at 15:55 UTC on 23 December, and ignored that, despite actively posting until 22:42 UTC - almost seven hours later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Cross-linked at WP:COIN per suggestion, with request to direct discussion here. Sai ¿? 18:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Saizai: I'll try to be a gentle as I can with this: you're asking for administrator to take some action (that's the purpose of this noticeboard). No administrator is going to force Mendaliv – an editor with 36,000+ edits and over 10 years' tenure and a volunteer here like the rest of us – to justify or remove anything, or apologise, or admit any wrongdoing. This is a difference of opinion, principally over content, and you need to go back to the article talk page to sort it out. I think that the discussion there has remained generally civil, and you should work with the assumption that all the parties are editing in good faith. You'll make more progress. If that fails, you're next stop should be WP:COIN.
Now, if there are any genuinely behavioural problems, you need to supply diffs so that a busy admin can glance at them and see the problem immediately. Admins are volunteers as well, and if you genuinely want sanctions against another editor, especially a veteran editor, I'm afraid you're going to need a lot more than you've presented here. --RexxS (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said at the talk page and above, the ongoing AfD contains the bulk of the discussion of your organization's COI with regard to editing the article about it. Wikilawyering around the issue is, well, not exactly helpful to your cause. At any rate, I have Christmas parties to attend. So I bid you good morning. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Saizai, the COI is an objective fact. We do not have to explain to your satisfaction why your edits to an article about your endeavours are not in line with WP:NPOV. And namechecking yourself in an article really is the dictionary definition of COI, so you can take your Wikilawyering elsewhere. If you edit that article again, you will be blocked for spamming. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't highlight me again with your nonsense User:Saizai. --Tarage (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Saizai I would venture to suggest that I have a better insight into what constitutes problematic editing than you do, especially since you have a dog in this fight. Guy (Help!) 01:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, RexxS, are you seriously trying to justify Mendaliv's misbehaviour by pointing at his edit count? From what I can see here, 84% of his contributions made this year were made outside article space, and even the remaining 16% are mostly a matter of sticking tags, creating redirects and removing content. The only real contributions are two or three sentences about some football player. Fine, nothing wrong with that, and I'll be the first to admit that this kind of self-proclaimed wiki police does valuable work sometimes, but I also have the experience that people with similar edit patterns don't come here to write an encyclopedia, but simply because they are bored or looking for attention.

I hold no grudge against Mendaliv, and I don't think any disciplinary measures are necessary. What I am flabbergasted about, however, is that some of you are actually defending his behaviour. The problem is not the nomination itself, but the extremely toxic way it has been conducted in from the very beginning. I wasn't even aware of the article until I got a notification on my home wiki that my name had been mentioned on a talk page. What I saw there was a grotesque and completely false accusation directed at my address, even though I hadn't made a single edit in the article or the nomination page. Mendaliv's first reaction was that apparently I felt "offended by the recognition of the problem", and once I had refuted that, he elected not to respond at all, continuing his unwarranted accusations elsewhere. I am not amused about the way I have been dragged into this discussion! Which, I should add, is not the first time Mendaliv misbehaved towards me, because similar offensive behaviour happened almost two years ago. For the record, I may be a board member of the LCS, but I am also a Wikipedian with ca. 14 years experience (including as an admin and Arbcom member at wp.nl) and over 18,000 edits. That shouldn't matter a thing, but well, if people seriously want to use editcounting as a means to weigh people's credibility... (besides, remember WP:DTTR).

The way I understand the AfD procedure, it is primarmily a call to make an article that is unacceptable for some reason (including notability issues) into an acceptable article. Mendaliv's actions, however, make it quite clear that he does not want it improved at all, he just wants it deleted at all cost. Starting from the nomination text, which is more like a rant, full of assumptions, insinuations and half-truths. When people demonstrate otherwise, they are either ignored or put under suspicion. What makes the discussion especially poisonous, is that it focuses on Mendaliv's assumption that people with a conflict of interest had been editing the article, even though he has failed to prove a single NPOV edit made by any of the people he mentioned (in reality, nobody affiliated to the LCS has added anything substantial). For the record, even if the COI were true, it is not forbidden for users with a COI to make uncontroversial edits. I am not accusing Mendaliv of acting in bad faith, I suspect it's simply a combination of ignorance and stubbornness. It is regrettable though that he keeps reiterating assumptions that have already been proven wrong to him in the past, but I take it that's simply because he chooses to ignore facts that don't fit his opinions. I do believe, however, that his constant ad hominem reasoning has a very bad influence on the quality of the discussion. Best regards, —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 14:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Just stopping in this morning to see how this has progressed. I am completely unsurprised to see another LCS officer doubling down on personal attacks against me, complete with gaslighting/projecting. Sai got told to keep out of the article or get blocked, so one of Sai's surrogates shows up. This is the pattern LCS followed in the DRV last year. It is the pattern I expect LCS to follow when it starts a frivolous DRV after the current AfD closes. That LCS and its officers, directors, and people with a financial connection to LCS should not be adding promotional content to this article, should not be dropping their own names in the article, etc. is absolute basic Wikipedia standards. You have an actual conflict of interest, Vice President IJzeren Jan. No amount of dissimulation and personal attacks against me will change that. Now, I am returning to my family Christmas events. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC
In my personal opinion, you sound like a trigger-happy nominator on a mission to destroy. You show a the hyperaggressive and confrontational approach against both the article and everybody you deemed related to it. To my opinion, Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. The Banner talk 21:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
It's funny you are accusing me of personal attacks, Mendaliv, while your own conduct in this case has been nothing but one large series of personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with you, LCS-affiliated or not, including myself. But well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, right? Minutes ago histories have been merged, so please take a look for yourself. Or wait, to save you the effort, I'll give you the links myself. Here are all edits I've ever made to the article. This one was made in 2010, long before I became a member of the LCS myself. All I did was adding categories and correcting an error in the format. The second one was made in January 2017. I actually removed stuff that I found to be unencyclopedic, including names. That's all. And you keep accusing ME of namedropping???
For the record, let it be said that the person who added my name to the article is a person entirely unknown to me, who has declared not to have a connection to the LCS. If you don't believe me, then by all means file a checkuser request! Although quite frankly, it is ridiculous that people have to prove their innocence, while you still haven't been able to present a single piece of evidence of promotional editing by an LCS member.
Secondly, I don't appreciate being called "one of Sai's surrogates", which is insulting and also untrue, since I haven't add any offwiki contact with Sai since you started this whole thing. Besides, you conveniently seem to forget that it was actually YOU who pulled me into this discussion in the first place.
Thirdly, I already was a Wikipedian when you still were in Kindergarten, so you really don't need to tell me anything about Wikipedia standards and policies. I challenge you to find one single example of unethical behaviour in my entire edit history. If you can, I promise I will personally have myself blocked for at least one year. If you can't, I hope you will at least have the decency to admit that your insinuations have been false.
And at last, you are also accusing me now of dissimulation, too. This is a serious and, as far as I'm concerned, incredibly low accusation. I demand that you either prove or withdraw that. Until now, I have been assuming that you were acting in good faith, and that it was merely your inability to separate assumptions from facts that guided you. But your behaviour makes it more than clear that you are not interested at all in any truthfinding, you just want win this battle by any means necessary, even if that means deliberately distorting the truth. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 00:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
You are upset about being listed as a {{connected contributor}} to the LCS article. You have not been marked as someone who has edited the article. Being listed as a connected contributor is not an accusation of bias. It is a plain statement of fact: You are an officer of LCS. By definition, the officers and directors of an organization have an WP:ACTUALCOI with respect to that organization. You have followed WP:COIEDIT by avoiding making edits to the article directly, and I think that is a respectable thing to do. I would, however, remind you that WP:COIEDIT also advises you to respect other editors by keeping discussions concise. There is no need for multiparagraph treatises here. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry if the length of my responses causes you trouble. It's just that I'm a bit old-fashioned (not used to writing in slogans or abbreviations), and for what it is worth, I prefer to show respect to other editors by supporting my point with facts and arguments. I would be admirable on your part if you could sometimes do the same by substantiating your claims. In any case, there was no need at all to add me to a list of connected contributors before I had made a single edit. By all means read WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest once more, especially the section titled "Avoid outing". BTW the reason I am upset is not the tag, but the insinuations accompanying it.
Now, I'm not much into wikilawyering, but there is no rule that forbids editors with a potential conflict of interest to edit, especially they are open about their affiliations and their edits are uncontroversial. You seem to assume that every edit made by a person with any kind of affiliation is promotional by definition, and what's more, you basically deny these people the right to say anything about the subject by openly calling upon others to ignore whatever facts and arguments they present. Thát's not right, you see. By attacking people for being honest, you create an atmosphere that encourages people to hide their identity or even engage in sockpuppetry. You should at least understand that people close to a subject are also the ones who know most about it, knowledge that just might turn out to be valuable. To quote something I wrote elsewhere: "This constant focus on editors instead of edits is dangerous and unhealthy for the project. Ultimately, there are only good edits and bad edits. If an edit is good, it doesn't matter who made it, if it's bad, it should be removed no matter who made it." —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 03:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
In all my years on Wikipedia I've not been aware that self-identification as a COI-afflicted editor leads inevitably to ignoring such a person's edits or arguments. Rather, the intent is to provide contextualization, and frankly, to cut through the smokescreen of longwinded, pointless argumentation that disruptive COI-afflicted editors tend to engage in. I think you've gotten your point across that you've not significantly edited the article. You've also made it clear that you're the current VP of the LCS organization. The rest of the argument, that there is something untoward about pointing out the existence of a COI without outing the editor, is not really suited for discussion on ANI. This board is not for proposing changes to Wikipedia policy or common practices.
One more thing, though, you characterize the situation... I think of yourself but perhaps other LCS editors... as being a "potential" conflict of interest. This is incorrect. As an officer of the LCS organization, you have an actual COI. You have not disrupted the article by editing yet, though I do argue you have participated rather extensively in LCS discussions, such as the AfD and DRV. I believe your actual conflict of interest is relevant to that discussion. If your hope is to remove yourself from the list of connected contributors, it would have been more simple to just ask for that. I wouldn't have been against it, quite honestly, if you'd been straightforward about that. But when you get into arguments about principles unmoored from the edicts of existing Wikipedia policy, it's really hard to tell what you want. And when you have contributed so substantially to the discussions, as you have, I think it's probably a good idea that you be identified as a connected contributor. But I would (of course) be open to hearing the opinions of others, either here or at WP:COIN, as to whether the identification is advisable under Wikipedia policy. I have no dog in this fight, so it makes little difference to me. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Mendaliv[edit]

To me, it looks like Mendaliv is waging a war against the Society and its members. And the way he is acting is damaging for the encyclopedia and the community. His personal behaviour should be reviewed too. The Banner talk 11:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I was not notified of this subsection being started. Thankfully, I noticed it before any discussion began. I note that Banner has neglected to provide any diffs of misconduct (or any conduct whatsoever) on my part. Nonetheless, I invite any comments or criticism of my behavior here. I will also note that there has been, contrary to what Banner's claims above would seem to indicate, significant action against spam/promotional activity by the LCS in the article. I find it hard to believe that my conduct represents a personal grudge, hyperaggression, war, any other unsourced/unsupportable BLP/NPA-violating descriptor in light of the multiple concurring opinions regarding LCS's conduct in this matter. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I don't think Mendaliv has really overstepped any boundaries or that moderator action will be necessary. I also note that some of the most offensive texts were actually written by others. As I wrote above, his tone is a tad too pricky to my taste, and for example sentences like the one above ("to cut through the smokescreen of longwinded, pointless argumentation that disruptive COI-afflicted editors tend to engage in") may be generalisations rather than personal attacks, but it should be clear that the slightly insinuative undertone might easily evoke the wrong connotations among uninformed others. Please, Mendaliv, instead of shelving people, try to be a bit more open-minded and listen to arguments.
Since you ask for criticism, it's actually quite simple. First of all, I get a strong sense that behind the pseudo-arguments and insinuations in your nomination text there's a strong undercurrent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. "Mission to destroy" might be a strong way to put it, but you are clearly not interested in seeing the article improved. You try to make your point by undermining people's credibility, arguing with keep !voters who use weak arguments and systematically ignoring arguments that prove you wrong. That's not very constructive. Sometimes it pays off more to be a good sport and say: "Okay, I was wrong". Mind you, I actually agree with you on several accounts: I don't believe in inherited notability, I am as much against advertising and namedropping as you are, and I'd much rather have three good references than forty bad ones.
So, I'd kindly like to ask you three questions:
  • Please take a look at the three academic publications I've provided, and tell me if you still believe that there is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources.
  • Do you recognise that the ghits argument you use in your nomination is moot, since even Donald Trump generates less ghits than the LCS, using the same method?
  • What else would be needed, in your opinion, to give the article (mind, not necessarily in its current form) the benefit of the doubt?
Cheers, —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 03:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll respond at the AfD, reading the newer sources now. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Nah, when content is repeatedly deleted as COI promotionalism of something non-notable, we expect a clean-slate approach to creating an article on it again: it needs to be by neutral, unconnected editors, in an encyclopedic tone and approach, and with notability well-established with non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources – before anything about it hits mainspace. It's standard operating procedure to treat attempts to restore the material as more CoI PoV pushing when these standards are not met; doing so doesn't indicate any personal hostility to the topic. E.g., I edit a lot of pool player bios and would like to see more coverage of women players, but if someone keeps creating an article on the no. 137 player in the WPBA and the editor seems to be her auntie or husband, I will keep seeking to have that article deleted as promotional COI claptrap about a non-notable person – even if she's actually a friend of mine. (Has not happened yet, but could – I know several pros personally who are not notable yet.) This is not MakeExceptionsToTheRulesForSubjectsWeLike-Pedia. There is no principle by which we punish someone at ANI for working to ensure community policies are applied consistently. Mendaliv is not the problem.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  22:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Let me just note here that I thank Mendaliv for this comprehensive reply on the AfD page. I'm neither an admin nor did I start this thread, but given the fact that the AfD has been completed, I believe this whole case can be closed now. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 22:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

COI[edit]

Saizai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), a founder of the group, is editing the article. I have warned for COI. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I've started this as a subsection at WP:COIN. Please direct comments there. Sai ¿? —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
But, confusingly, you say there that discussion should be directed here, to ANI. In any case, it doesn't help to have it spread over COIN, ANI, and AfD. I have archived the COIN discussion per WP:TOOMANYNOTICEBOARDS. Bishonen | talk 17:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC).
I say we take the highway approach (aka ArbCom -> Church of Scientology approach) and give them what they deserve. --QEDK () 20:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

History[edit]

Here is the page history, for all us non-admin types...

  • 19:11, 29 December 2017 J04n (talk | contribs) deleted page Language Creation Society (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination) (XFDcloser))
  • 23:03, 25 December 2017 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) restored page Language Creation Society (93 revisions) (histmerge)
  • 23:02, 25 December 2017 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) deleted page Language Creation Society (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
  • 21:50, 22 December 2017 Fences and windows (talk | contribs) moved page Language Creation Society to User:Adoricic/sandbox without leaving a redirect (Moving back to sandbox) (revert)
  • 21:48, 22 December 2017 Fences and windows (talk | contribs) restored page Language Creation Society (24 revisions) (Restoring to move back to sandbox)
  • 10:38, 22 December 2017 Shirt58 (talk | contribs) deleted page Language Creation Society (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (CSDH))
  • 19:43, 1 June 2016 Salvidrim! (talk | contribs) deleted page Language Creation Society (G6: accidentally left redir behind when draftspacing ·)
  • 19:42, 1 June 2016 Salvidrim! (talk | contribs) moved page Language Creation Society to Draft:Language Creation Society (DRV closed as: undelete and move to draftspace to require AfC review before mainspacing again) (revert)
  • 19:42, 1 June 2016 Salvidrim! (talk | contribs) restored page Language Creation Society (97 revisions restored: DRV closed as: undelete and move to draftspace to require AfC review before mainspacing again)
  • 00:52, 4 March 2016 RoySmith (talk | contribs) deleted page Language Creation Society (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society closed as delete)
This page has been protected so only extended confirmed users can create it. The latest protection log entry is provided below for reference.
  • 19:14, 29 December 2017 J04n (talk | contribs) protected Language Creation Society [Create=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite) (Repeatedly recreated per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society (2nd nomination)) (hist)

-- Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 30 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:MWS[edit]

After continued refusal to listen, it winds up with TPA recovation. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:23, 29 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.

This user is becoming very disruptive:

  • [27] 19:35 Dec 24 changes numbers to something the reference does not support. Supposedly they have private data that disagrees with a review published in the Lancet.
  • [28] 23:58 Dec 24 (starts addomh signature to main space)
  • [29] 14:51 Dec 25 (adds simple disruption and signature again)
  • [30] 19:31 Dec 15 (continues)

They were previously editing as an IP and moved to an account once the page was protected.[31]. I had started talk page discussion on both issues.[32] They have removed warnings from their talk page.[33]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hum they use "v"s for "f"s. Reminds me of a prior blocked account that refused to use standard English writing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Blocked for signing edits in mainspace, see if they engage on user talk, otherwise we may be back here later this week. Guy (Help!) 00:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
    • User:JzG Signing their name again in mainspace[34] and no reference provided. I do not think they have the competence to edit Wikipedia so thus would support a longer block. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Le sigh. Disappointed but not surprised. Re-blocked without expiry, let's see if he gets it. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Given his response was to invoke WP:FREESPEECH and "I can sue" based on same... - The Bushranger One ping only 20:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
[35] remove TPA? BytEfLUSh Talk 01:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
They're still at it, so yes, done. --NeilN talk to me 01:59, 29 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.

Bigg Boss 11[edit]

Closing, because the OP has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts to get upper hand in content dispute per this this SPI. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:09, 30 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.

Please stop User_talk:ScrapIronIV for making unasusual edits against BB11 as he is trying to removing the things from the page which should not suppose to be happen as that page is also the part of reality show Big Brother, he stated that that show has ended, there are several shows that have ended but their weekly and voting summaries are still existed on their pages so why ScrapIron is doing nonsense on the page Bigg Boss 11. please stop him and warn him too for stop making the edits as he is doing on the page Bigg Boss 11 because there are several Bigg Boss and Big Brother or other reality show related pages where the show summaries relating their votings are still mentioned on their pages either ended or upcoming or under progress. Finally Wikipedia can be used for Sports, Entertainmental purpose by maing accurate articles not the way as ScrapIron did at Bigg Boss 11 THank You.CK (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Broken nutshell - If you have concerns regarding the content that ScrapIronIV is removing, are you discussing the content you're concerned about with him on the article's talk page? I'm not talking about the edit here where you threaten a block and say, "Sorry We're not satisfied by your edits, as you're making wikipedia unauthentic by yourself that could result you to got temporarily blocked from editing for short period or could be long. let the edits remain as you're saying that it's not entertaining thing. yes it is entertaining thing and informative that you made it nonsense by making your slum edits that could result in vandalisms" - I'm talking about a constructive discussion that directly addresses and explains your concerns regarding the content. There's no edit warring going on, and there's no actual discussion taking place on your part that's in compliance with Wikipedia's dispute resolution practices. I highly recommend that you review this policy and do this...
And who exactly is "we"? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I have asked that same question. These pages have been full of sockpuppets, and undisclosed paid editing. These removals are to address specific behavioral issues on these pages, and to remove unencyclopedic cruft from the topic. A TV show with 100,000 bytes of trivia is nonsense, and not in keeping with what Wikipedia is, or is not. ScrpIronIV 13:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I vote to erase the existence of reality TV shows on Wikipedia and save us the trouble of hopeless fanatics. --QEDK () 20:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Why not strike the words "on Wikipedia" from that? - The Bushranger One ping only 20:29, 29 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.

John Carter violated his IBAN again[edit]

John Carter blocked for 1 week by BU Rob13. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:07, 29 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.

In January John Carter (talk · contribs) and I were placed under a mutual IBAN[36] was blocked for one month after almost immediately violating it, by posting about me in an Arbitration page in a manner that was not covered by WP:BANEX,[37] then was immediately unblocked when he claimed in an email to the blocking admin Sandstein (talk · contribs).[38] (This was a blatant lie, as part of the harassment that originally led to the IBAN was lecturing me about the nature of IBANs and the narrow exceptions provided by BANEX.[39]) In the subsequent month during which he would have been blocked, he made several small indications that he was still monitoring my edits, and seemed to be deliberately playing with the boundaries of the ban,[40][41][42] and then in March violated the ban by answering a comment I had made on a talk page.[43] Earlier this month, he made another of the "playing" edits by commenting in an ANI discussion I had involved myself in.[44]

Today, he did basically the same thing that led to his one-month block in January, by posting a screed about me in an ARCA request I had posted that didn't involve him.[45] He questioned my "competence" and making a completely false claim that I was "owning" a draft article that I explicitly encouraged other users to edit, to the point that I expressed dismay that another user had started their own competing draft based on the assumption that I didn't want them editing "mine".[46] Pinging User:BU Rob13, whom JC pinged in his latest violation, but who was also heavily involved in the initial discussion to ban/block JC that led to the IBAN. I want to address what JC about me in my ARCA request for BU Rob13's benefit, but doing so there would, ironically, violate the ban, and would also involve "relitigating" issues that are related to the original 2015 case (even though they were not brought up then), which is something I don't want to do.

Note that John was inactive between February 16 and March 8,[47] and then again between March 8 and November 14,[48] so this is not a case of a couple of accidental slip-ups 11 months apart from each other; he has been violating the ban at a rate of once a month, even disregarding the joining in of ANI threads and the like which I have already joined.

Can someone block him for at least a month given the above background?

Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Or, alternately, considering the comments by me about which he is complaining relate to the Arb case whose results Hijiri88 seeks to amend, perhaps BOOMERANG on the basis of possibly raising harassing ANI complaints? John Carter (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I was going to ping User:Black Kite on Sandstein's talk page, to the effect that it would be inappropriate for me to open an AE request for a community sanction and that this clarification was already offered to John back in January the last time he made the same excuse, but I figured it best to keep it here.
Can the faulty close be undone or the requested enforcement made?
Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: It's not ongoing: User:Sandstein is WP:INVOLVED (the initial ping was a courtesy, not a request to intervene) and User:Black Kite has already withdrawn their initial questioning of the close (although that was before two Arbs and a clerk agreed with their initial questioning...), so I'm not counting on either of them to do anything. Everyone else was basically saying this ANI thread should be reopened, without comment on the merit of it, and no one has said anything at all for several hours, the last being about 30 minutes after the initial close. Might as well do what was suggested, though, and ping User:Beeblebrox for their opinion; I'm kinda tired of wading through these administrative hurdles that even the administrators don't seem to understand, mind you, so if anyone else wants to cut the knot immediately that would be appreciated. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, but how is this not black-and-white evidence of John Carter hounding Hijiri? How many times do we have to go through this? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  • In my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, I've blocked John Carter for one week due to the IBAN violation. ~ Rob13Talk 06:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Another admin has stepped in and blocked for a week. For the record I agree that it was a pretty clear violation and not exempt, and I probably would have issued a harsher block myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13, Beeblebrox: okay, he's been blocked, but it's clear as day at this point that JC is hounding Hijiri and is looking for every edge scenario he can to skirt the IBAN—including commenting in ANI threads directly below Hijiri while not actually mentioning Hijiri's name. He's obviously not going to stop with this—he's persistently acting in bad faith. Something further needs to be done to deal with it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I agree with Curly Turkey that, in addition to the blatant violation(s) at ARCA [52] for which BU Rob just now blocked him for one week, John Carter has also been repeatedly stealth-violating the IBan while ostensibly appearing not to technically (in the very strictest sense). This sort of behavior is completely unacceptable and has a chilling effect on the entire Wikipedia process. The community has already spent far too much time on this issue over the years. I recommend an official final warning that such behavior will not be tolerated and that further instances will result in either a two-month block or an indef block. Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC); edited 08:51, 29 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:DongbuHiTek[edit]

Spam reverted and user indeffed (spamuserblock). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:55, 29 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.

Just like User_talk:Burger King Corporation, User:DongbuHiTek was created for the same purposes User:Burger King Corporation was created, it only made one edit: [53] [54] and it was to add that company to that list. It's unactive, but it could easily be used for self promotional purposes at any moment. Pancho507 (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Given this account hasn't edited since April 2015, it would've presumably been declined at UAA, so I guess reporting here seemed like the only thing to do. I don't know what typical practice is with inactive, but clearly inappropriate usernames, but this definitely seems low-priority. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Not actionable. No edits for two years; account is inactive and it's not warranted. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
If the edit was not appropriate, it could be removed (if it hasn't already been). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 29 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.

Spanish Fort High School[edit]

Troublesome BLP violating BS reverted, more eyes on article. Nothing else needed. Thanks to all. John from Idegon (talk) 06:27, 29 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.

We seem to have an edit war over a 'controversy' section. But aside from dealing with the behavior, it would be helpful to reach a consensus regarding the imperative to include lists of crimes and deaths that involve non notable persons and receive passing media coverage. I'm not sure why a new account would pop up just to keep such items, unless there's a personal agenda. Thoughts, attention and maybe page protection will be appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

That's wildly WP:UNDUE, watched and will deal with it if the SPA in question keeps hammering at it. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
It is on my watchlist too. That content simply does not belong in this article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I remember removing the "purple" section more than two years ago, sourced to the same Huffington Post item. Meters (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Plenty of watchers, me included. I think we are done here. John from Idegon (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI - I revdeleted some BLP violations at Spanish Fort High School. Since this is the first time I have done this, I would appreciate it if an experienced administrator would let me know if I did thinks properly. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: You missed this revision when BLP-violative content was still live. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You need to revdel all versions of the article that contain the BLP violation, not just the version it was first introduced in. --NeilN talk to me 23:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Mendaliv and NeilN. This has been a useful learning experience, and I appreciate your help. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:23, 29 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.

IP editor necessitating reverts for non-vandal edits[edit]

Blocked 31 hours. Looks like someone suddenly discovered the can edit with a smart phone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:37, 29 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.

2001:8003:4F07:C800:248F:4F6C:D1BE:DA8F (talk · contribs) is continuously making changes to infoboxes that require reversion, such as adding middle names and honorifics, that are against style yet fall short of vandalism. I have left numerous messages on the user's talk page that are unacknowledged. Requesting a block and reversion of any other similar edits. Will notify user shortly. --Jprg1966 (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, whatever the relevant policy is, this IP is definitely edit warring, and Jprg1966 certainly has attempted to talk with the IP. Intervention would appear to be needed here. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Relatedly, I would appreciate admin clarification if my use of rollback in reverting these edits was appropriate. I did a large number of reversions in a short time that were not for vandalism per se. So feedback is welcome. --Jprg1966 (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) From WP:ROLL: To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear (emphasis mine). So, you did right. :) BytEfLUSh Talk 05:10, 29 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.

Personal attacks and threatening behaviour surrounding "Wolf Warrior 2"[edit]

Semiprotected and IP blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:21, 29 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.

For many months, some users and IPs have been blanking mention of negative reviews of the film Wolf Warrior 2, which are reliably sourced. Some of these users/IPs were blocked last month for being the same person (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whaterss). The various usernames/IPs were used to censor a lot of reliably-sourced Wikipedia content that differed from the worldview of the Chinese government, contrary to the policy at WP:NOT.

Now a new series of IPs have appeared to blank the same content at Wolf Warriors 2, and the person behind these IPs is increasingly violating the policy at Wikipedia:Civility.

  • name-calling: i.e. here
  • rudeness: i.e. here, here
  • threatening suggestions that we should meet up in person: here and here; latter of which includes a specific time and place in my city where I am meant to show up and be a "real man"

I have politely warned the user and linked to the civility policy (i.e. here), but the behaviour has escalated since then (with the more recent invitation to meet in Causeway Bay tomorrow). My user page was also vandalised with fake user boxes a few days ago, which I suspect is related.

I haven't seen the film and I didn't add the negative reviews in the first place. I have suggested repeatedly (i.e. here, here and here) that a more constructive approach would be to add more Chinese perspectives to the page if they feel that mentioning negative reviews of this film is "anti-Chinese", but content is still being unduly blanked. Citobun (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Suggest semi-protection; given there's socking (or at least IP hopping) involved and the conduct appears just to be blanking with refusal to interact constructively, I think semi-protection would be a good idea here. The one IP's suggestion of a meet-up to fight over this editing dispute is somewhere between creepy and silly, but in any event shouldn't be tolerated. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Semied one month. Any more creepiness from IPs and I will start blocking but if another admin wants to do the deed now please be my guest. --NeilN talk to me 06:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I blocked the IP for a week for harassment, with a warning that the next block will be longer. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all for the quick response. Citobun (talk) 06:39, 29 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.

My block of 62.253.196.108[edit]

Agreed that block was fine, no further action required --Malerooster (talk) 13:38, 29 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 just blocked User:62.253.196.108 for a week and I am potentially involved. They had just came off a 2 day block for disruptive editing. I interacted with them prior to the block. I reverted a single edit on two different articles as potential BLP violating edits, warned them about personal attacks and reported them to WP:ANEW for edit warring. Since coming back from the block they have made four edits. Warn me about edit warring on an article I have made one edit. Warn another editor about edit warring. Make a revert on an article they were edit warring on before the block. Remove edits from their talk page with an edit summary that is both a legal threat and personal attack. Submitted here for review of the block. ~ GB fan 11:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a fine block. We have no use for a person like that. --Jayron32 11:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Block's fine, yes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 29 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.

Archive box busted?[edit]

Looks fixed to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 29 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'm not seeing any content there, despite purging this page and the module page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Me either. Quite curious. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Likewise. General Ization Talk 20:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Module:Archive list, which Module:Admin board archives depends on, was modified about six hours ago by Anomie (talk · contribs). I can't say that's what did it, but it's the first change to that code in years... and I don't believe in coincidences when it comes to code breaking. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
The same template is working fine on this archive page. General Ization Talk 20:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it's a different template; {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} vs {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox}}. While they both call Module:Admin board archives, they do so in slightly different ways. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Frustrating. (A) Can someone post a note on Anomie's talkpage? They don't seem to be responding. (B) Or can someone who has the user rights undo the change that Anomie made? (C) Was Centralized Discussion always on this page? I don't remember seeing it until now. Softlavender (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I undid the change which seems to have fixed the issue. --NeilN talk to me 20:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Looking at Anomie's contribs, it looks like the change to Module:Archive list was made to make this user talk archive list work properly. I think looking forward it would have been better to discuss this first. I'm still not sure why this broke the template. Also, it looks like T:CENT has been transcluded in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader for some years now. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, unexpected outcomes, the bane of coding. @Softlavender: - yeah, it's always been there. Have fun with your brain driving you nuts now that you've Noticed it, though! Face-wink.svg - The Bushranger One ping only 20:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • All hail NeilN! Seems to be fixed now, if rather shorter than I remember (am I losing my mind?). I guess we can close this now? Softlavender (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Softlavender: Sorry I didn't reply in the whole 10 minutes you waited between your the first ping and complaining about non-response.</sarcasm>
  • @everyone else: Sorry (for real) for the disruption, I overlooked a case in the module's behavior. See the module's sandbox and talk page to follow up. Anomie 04:40, 30 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 at Turkey[edit]