Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive976

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

Noticeboard archives


Darwinek and BLPs[edit]

I think we can call this discussion sufficiently resolved. Darwinek responded and stated that he agreed with the policy cited and understood the concerns, and that he'd take note to address them with future edits. Lugnuts - You're going to starting making "wiki-life" harder on yourself with the brash interactions and responses I've seen you've been making toward others recently. Ymblanter and Darwinek both expressed concerns in this ANI regarding your civility level and how you tend to resort to various levels of personal stabs to make your point. Not only did I have to respond to you here and ask you to focus on the issue and not to "throw poop" at Ymblanter, but while I was helping resolve your concerns here, another ANI was created below that expressed concerns about your interactions again! Lugnuts - I like you a lot and you know that, man... but you really really need to give how you argue viewpoints in discussions and interact with other editors some self-evaluation and thought, and tone down the personal jabs and words that you use toward others significantly. It's not good to see multiple editors expressing issues with your interactions and civility here, and then have to respond to such problems multiple times in such a short timespan. You gotta work on that, man... you really need to actively work to improve this if you want to grow here and be respected and looked up upon by the community as an experienced editor. I really hope you do so :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:04, 10 February 2018 (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, who is also an admin, does not seem to think there's an issue with adding unsourced content to BLP articles. I've brought this to their attention twice before (Dec, Jan). However, they continue to add unsourced information to BLP articles such as this, this and this edit. I thought it was pretty clear that anything added to a BLP MUST be sourced, no matter how small a detail? I'd be grateful if someone could take it up with this editor, as I've tried, but they chose not to listen. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts - Generally, yes - you do want to reference content like the addition of birthdays and birth places to a reliable source in BLP's - for sure. It may not have to be cited exactly right there and next to that exact content if the reference is repeatedly cited in multiple locations and places within the article, but you should have a reference provided in the article and cited somewhere that verifies content being added. Reading through a BLP and verifying that content is supported by a reference somewhere on the page is a common task for editors to perform. It's absolutely reasonable for an editor to ask for a reference to be pointed out or provided to verify any BLP content, and to remove that content from the article until one is provided. WP:BURDEN is the exact policy to invoke here, in that "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Having clarified and paraphrased how that works here, are you sure that Darwinek has been adding content to BLPs that's completely referenced to a reliable source from the article at all? Is it possible that it was already cited or referenced on the article somewhere else and a ref link just wasn't placed right next to the content in question? I'm just wondering if this might be a simple case of confusion with "when to reference" vs "when to cite and link" :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Oshwah: - Darwinek is simply adding unreferenced info to BLPs. This was the original version of one of the latest articles in question. The one source to the 2018 Winter Olympic page makes no reference to her hometown that Darwinek added here. I removed it, only for moments latter for Darwinek to source it. At best this is lazy, and at worst, it's disruptive. But that's what he's been doing for some time. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLP says all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; Is Groningen as the birthplace really likely to be challenged? I am not really surprised that Lugnuts is not familiar with our policies but still aggressively pushes his vision.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I agree with Lugnuts. Editors should not be adding unsourced biographical data to BLPs just because it might be verifiable. Birthplaces, DOBs, and other similar information should be sourced with the addition/change. For an admin not to do this is surprising and not constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Whereas I fully agree that this is a best practice to reference all the data which we have in BLPs, I do not see how it is absolutely necessary to immediately reference the PoB in a BLP which will clearly we worked on further in the same days, which is not controversial, and which certainly will be references (all Olympic athletes quickly get links to their sports federations which provide the bios). And all of this on a scale of two hours. If it does not get references in say in a week, and the user clearly ignores the request, it might become a ANI case.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Bbb23 as I stated in my initial response above - biological data such as a BLP's birthdate and age, weight, height, legal name, relatives, etc - are absolutely things I'd expect to be referenced to a reliable source from the BLP article, and I would expect to be talked to or messaged if I were to add such content to a BLP and without providing one if none exists - that feels like common sense to me taking into account our BLP policy and how strictly we scrutinize such articles. If someone challenges the addition of such content to them (as what's clearly been happening here), then one must be provided. It's acceptable (and somewhat expected) for editors to make mistakes - things happen and nobody's perfect. But making the same mistake repeatedly and over a period of time? - and especially given the user's tenure, user rights, and the repeated messages and concerns expressed? That does cause me a little bit of concerns as well (as Bbb23 stated above)... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
But the period of time is two hours, right? I think things would look differently if this is a recurring pattern. And, again, in BLPs of Olympians all these things together are typically referenced to just one page, which is always added pretty soon after the creation of an article. Two hours might be just a part of the workflow - adding PoB first and the link second, or smth like this. WP:BLP allows for this workflow.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
You're right, Ymblanter - it is a small period of time to grow concerns over, but I just feel that such references should be provided from the get-go when you add this stuff in the first place. Surely, you ("you", meaning the editor in general) pulled the information from somewhere, right? So reference it :-). But yes, I should clarify that when I say that I'm "concerned", I'm saying that what seems to be occurring here is bad practice that I generally wouldn't do :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Sure, I agree this is the best practice, and I in any case try to reference such things if not always in the same edit then at least immediately afterwards. However, we are talking about editing articles which are likely to be heavily edited (Olympic athletes at the day of competition). It is not always easy (and not always a good idea) to do everything in one edit due to heavy conflicts. Anyway, what I am really concerned with is that Darwinek so far did not respond here explaining their vision of the problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I too would like to hear from Darwinek and for him to respond here with his side of the issues and concerns - it would help so that I can weigh both inputs here and offer help so that this can be resolved :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Oshwah: Good afternoon everyone. I completely agree that sources have to be added to BLPs, as this is one of our standard WP policies. As you can see from my edit history, I am lately making dozens to hundreds small edits per day. Sometimes I just forget to add the source for the person's birthplace. It is not an excuse though, and I agree I should be adding it to any article on BLP, whenever new content is added. On a side note though, I am afraid that I am being singled out by User:Lugnuts as the articles he is referring to were created by him. Last month I had a discussion with him and emphasized that WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN and WP:AGF are our core policies as well. - Darwinek (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Perfect! Sounds like a reasonable resolution to me - Darwinek understands the concerns and says that he'll take note and make sure that he includes the references alongside the content he adds piece-by-piece. As far as the concerns regarding Lugnuts: I'll address that in the closing statement. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
"Sometimes I just forget to add the source for the person's birthplace" - I'm sorry, but that is not acceptable. I just forget? Even after being told about it on multiple occasions? I'm pretty sure if you weren't an admin, you would have been blocked for at least a 24hr period for this before now, as I've seen that happen to other editors. I have a feeling we'll be back here in the future to discuss this issue with Darwinek again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I would not have blocked anyone for 24 hours in this ANI situation, and Darwinek's user rights make absolutely no difference to me. If he was being a prick to someone, I'd block him just like I'd block anyone else for doing the same... and I expect that any admin would do the same for me - and not give me any special treatment simply because I have a mop. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The place of birth could very well be challenged - I'm surprised Ymblanter has to ask this. Although he too thinks unsourced BLPs are OK. It fails WP:V. What's even more puzzling is that Darwinek CAN source BLPs in the same vein, as they did so yesterday! As I've said, this has been raised with the user before, but has dismissed it, hence why I've brought it here. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Great that you found my edit which you were happy to bring to ANI and demonstrate that I am an idiot, but I put {{inuse}} in the article in the very same edit and continued edited it - if I would not suffer from an edit conflict, it would be sourced a minute later by me. I do not see any issues here.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Lugnuts, let's not make rebuttals and return-arguments by waving diffs at Ymblanter and questioning his edits, please. Let's keep this ANI on-topic and discuss the concerns at-hand, which is what you stated in your initial statement :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Will do, Oshwah. I should not have reacted to Ymblanter's personal attack, above. I'd really like to hear from Darwinek now. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Lugnuts - Cool deal :-). I'm not trying to wave fingers or say "stop it - it's your fault or anything" - I just want to make sure that we stay on track and that we don't let things get this ANI discussion off on a wild or ridiculous tangent. We've both seen all-too-often how ANI discussions can completely blow up and turn into a poop-throwing war when people start smearing one another with personal pinches and prods in their replies ;-). That goes for you too, Mister! :-P

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.

GLAM / WIR / COI[edit]

Not going to get fixed here, and espite my ask the involved parties carried on unabated, which won't end well, so next stop ArbCom . Guy (Help!) 23:55, 10 February 2018 (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 been talking to Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) and Jytdog about their ongoing battle. I need some help to stop this ending up at ArbCom.

Consider for example this edit: [1] - this refers to [2] as a declaration of WP:PAID.

There is a fundamental and irreconcilable difference between long-standing, prolific and committed editors over whether a Wikipedian-in-residence is legitimately a WP:PAID COI in respect of individual articles related to a WIR engagement. Andy finds this tagging deeply offensive, not without reason, but I can also see Jytdog's point since it's arguably correct especially if one applies a literal reading. Actually I think the correct position is "neither of the above" but it is certainly not clear. Jytdog thinks he's protecting the integrity of Wikipedia, Andy thinks it's an outrageous personal attack that impugns his own integrity, and as an outsider who likes both of them I can see the merit in both views. In both cases we are talking about one of the things that defines them as Wikipedians. Jytdog watches COI, especially paid editing, and Andy works in real-world community outreach and as WiR. For both of them, this goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is to them.

My concern is that if we can't find a way of sorting this out it will end up at ArbCom, and not only will the committee not be able to fix the root problem (because questions of community consensus and guidance like this are out of their scope), they will also probably end up spanking a couple of prolific and dedicated editors due to the behaviour issues around the dispute. I don't think that is a good outcome. Both have previously been criticised by ArbCom for broadly similar conduct, and it seems to me not unlikely that both would be subject to some pretty harsh restrictions, possibly even bans, and in my view that would be bad.

The community is clearly ambivalent about paid editing, some people consider it an absolute evil, and there is no real consensus on the blurred line between paid editing and Wikipedian in residence, especially when the programme involves non-profit and educational institutions. Would a WiR at a cancer research charity, for example, have a WP:PAID COI when using the charity's research materials to add sources to articles? Does a WiR at a museum have such a COI when using materials from the private collections to update articles? Should there be some kind of WiR ombudsman to settle things? I think we need some clarity, and this fight is inevitable fallout from that lack of clarity. I do wonder if we should also be asking the Foundation to provide better governance oversight of this activity. Let's not pretend it has always gone well.

I have an idea of how to start, but I need to know if it's a good idea and I will need help implementing it if so.

  1. A one month two-way interaction ban between Jytdog and Pigsonthewing, obviously
  2. A one month topic ban of both from WT:COI/WP:PAID and related pages, save for a single statement laying out their case in neutral terms (i.e. not including pointy fingers) in the context of...
  3. A centralised discussion to clarify consensus on the representation of COI/PAID/whatever in WIR and GLAM engagement, and to explore possibilities for independent oversight to address legitimate concerns over conflicts between these activities and Wikipedia's mission.

Does this sound like a good idea? Or should I just give up and leave it to escalate to the point of blocks and bans? I'd advise involved parties not to comment at this point unless asked for a short explanation of specific points, per the law of holes. I am looking for input from uninvolved admins and experienced DR people please. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Uninvolved discussion[edit]

Clarify: Do professional editors have to disclose they're professional editors? GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Are you referring to "professional" editors like editors who edit as their profession / to make a living? Or professionals in employment who happen to also edit Wikiepdia? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Editors who may be getting paid to edit articles of interest, by their employer(s). GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
There's a sort of hierarchy. Employees of a company are not "paid editors" in the sense we'd understand it, but they have a COI. PR companies paid to buff up an article, they are paid editors, obviously, and the same would apply to people in a company paid to edit Wikipedia specifically. But Wikipedians-in-residence? That's much harder. They are usually Wikipedians first, placed in an organisation through a semi-official collaboration. It is not at all obvious how that should e treated. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
As a trustee of WMUK, I am acutely aware of the importance not only of avoiding COI, but of avoiding even the appearance of COI. Nevertheless, having been involved in the creation and review of several Wikimedian-in-Residence posts, I have to say that it is incredibly rare for a WiR to be asked to edit a specific article. Most often, their work will involve training uninvolved editors to edit articles (often related to the topic area of the employing institute), and in organising and making available on a Wikipedia-compatible basis the resources of the organisation. There really is no COI there, and it's a mistake to view WiRs as different from any other editor who works for a living. --RexxS (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I can believe this. The most baffling thing for me is that while Andy feels his integrity is being questioned and lies are being told, as far as I can see, there is no intent to do that. We need some kind of ombudsman or honest broker to handle this, because there are well-founded questions over what in-residence programmes actually mean in terms of edits and subjects. Most of this could be cleared up over a Wikipint, IMO, but it needs a calm, neutral venue for discussing it. Calm and neutral. Exactly what ANI is not... Guy (Help!) 17:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't feel those things; I have evidence of them; some of which I have already provided to you; and on various relevant talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh Andy, you really are making this hard. No you don't have evidence for those claims. You have evidence for the things that happened, and you have a perspective on how they look to you, and that perspective is legitimate, but, crucially, other interpretations are also legitimate, and reasonable people can and will differ. Do you really not see this at all? Guy (Help!) 17:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
You make allegations about me, and then criticise me for refuting them. Here is Jytdog brazenly stating that I was paid on behalf of an article subject; a complete and utter lie (as evidenced by the fact Jytdog removed the claim when challenged). That is evidence which I had already presented to you off-wiki. And here is Jytdog smearing me as "a serial WiR who continually adds promotional content about the organizations paying you". That's not a "legitimate interpretation"; it is a complete and utter falsehood, presented as an assertion of fact. With no evidence. But with intent. You owe me an apology. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
For heaven's sake, POTW, listen to what Guy is telling you and learn to pick your battles. I agree that Jytdog is overreacting here, but finding you promoting your various employers is literally just a case of going to User:Pigsonthewing#Interests, picking an entry at random and looking for your name in the history. (This was the very first one I looked at; are you really denying I won't find similar results with the others?) ‑ Iridescent 19:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I listened, And I heard Guy telling me I haven't been lied about or smeared. The four year old edit you cite was made in accordance with the then-current policies in Wikipedia; and added images, coordinates, citations, categories and, yes, external links to an existing stub. The article has since been edited by six uninvolved editors (not counting bots), none of whom have seen fit to remove any of the content I added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
As I have tried to explain several times, Andy, "smearing" implies deliberate attempts to impugn those you know do not deserve it and "lying" means deliberate and conscious falsehood. That is not the case here. Jytdog has a specific perspective. He has made some unquestionably intemperate statements based on that perspective. But he is not the only one with whom you are butting heads on this, and it is absolutely not as clear cut as you make out. Leave Jytdog alone and do not comment on him. He has said a thing you find grossly offensive, and pretty much everyone here understands why you od, and I doubt many of us disagree. Call it crass and you will have close to unanimous support. Call it lies and smears and you will get eyerolls so hard we will all be looking behind us. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
We can't conflate that Jytdog meant well with whether how he went about meaning well was unfair and damaging to another editor. And if an editor has been dropped in a hole we can expect that editor to try and dig himself out especially on Wikipedia where reputations are made or lost in single cases. Jytdog admits he can be a fanatic about COI and one understands the impetus for that. But I'd suggest that doesn't excuse damaging another person's reputations as has happened here. I'm not sure what the answer is but maybe the beginning is clarification.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC))
Both Jytdog and Andy have previous, and you have previous with Jytdog. The admin community is not daft, we are capable of reading between lines, and we are certainly capable of distinguishing genuinely helpful commentary from that which serves to exact revenge for past disputes. Just so you know. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Per the terms of use, anyone who is paid to edit Wikipedia needs to disclose this. The WMF's official FAQ on paid editing disclosure includes GLAM and WIR paid editing as an example that needs to be disclosed, though only when explicitly paid to edit Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 1:05 pm, Today (UTC−5)

The Wikipedia in Residence program seems like a very good thing to me, and we should be going out of our way to make involved editors feel welcome and appreciated. This is not exactly what I’ve been seeing here. Sure Pigsonthewing is probably overreacting. But if I’d been treated the way he has been, I’d be upset too. Paul August 20:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. This has been going on for over three weeks; pretty much every day, even when I was travelling overseas (for 12 hours, door-to-door, in order to volunteer for Wikidata; then reading on arrival that Jytdog wrote that I was "not doing anything useful"), so I hope any overreaction is forgivable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

In this ANI section which he himself opened, Jytdog said that he is "in the process of reviewing" Pigsonthewing's "extensive WiR/GLAM editing". However, this edit -- mentioned several times above -- indicates that Jytdog does not have the capability to carry out such a review accurately. Jytdog should not, therefore, carry out any such reviews. MPS1992 (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, hence the proposed restrictions. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Involved discussion[edit]

The above shows - as I was explaining to you off-wiki while you were, unbeknown to me, writing it - that you have no grasp of the locus of the dispute between Jytdog and I, which is about the use of {{COI}} on articles where there is no discussion as to the supposed COI issue on the relevant talk page. You continued to insist that the core of the matter was GLAM editing, despite my telling you more than once that it is not (and despite his attempt to smear me as a conflicted paid editor in the link you give, which he retracted after being challenged, Jytdog has also said as much). Jytdog is simply attempting to use my involvement in GLAM work as a means to silence me in that unrelated dispute, as was plainly apparent - and refuted - in the ANI case which you recently closed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point re the law of holes, Andy. Your downfall here will be the absolute refusal to accept any possibility of good faith on Jytdog's part. I think you are both doing your best, but I can't stop you if you want to point the car at the cliff and put your foot down. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion, Guy. I am fine with all three of your recommendations.

  • The kinds of interactions I had yesterday with Pigsonthewing and RexxS, are not why I volunteer here. I unwatched the template:COI yesterday and already intended to avoid both of them (hence no opposition to your proposals 1 or 2). I did respond to a ping from a third party after I unwatched it; I should have stuck to my resolution and just ignored it.
  • My perspective on how this developed and what is going on is here. I see now from the OP, that there is an additional layer of offense about the PAID tag and what that means to Pigsonthewing.
  • My thoughts on GLAM are User:Jytdog#GLAM, but the bigger topic is for the proposed RfC which I support having.
  • I try to be mindful of how the community thinks about COI and paid editing, and do what I can to help work on these issues and move consensus toward managing them appropriately. I am aware that I can be Javertish sometimes and that some people view me as a fanatic on these issues. My position is actually pretty grey and not black and white, but I do focus on these issues a lot.
  • I also try to keep content issues separate from behavior issues when dealing with COI matters. One of things that got so messy with Pigsonthewing is that these two things overlapped, and I should have gotten out of them and disengaged with Pigsonthewings much sooner than I did. I apologize to everybody for that.

That's what I have to say here. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy for starting this discussion. I'm not sure this is the best venue, but perhaps there is value in flagging up these issues for administrators' attention, even if a specific remedy finally eludes us.
Let me say that although I am firmly opposed on principle to any editing for hire, I am in general agreement with Jytdog on the following points:
  1. Editors who are doing a specific piece of paid editing work should disclose both on their user page and on the affected article that they are being paid to make those edits.
  2. Editors ought to avoid directly editing an article about any organisation where they are employed, or have any other financial interest. Or at the very worst, they should restrict themselves to making absolutely uncontroversial edits (i.e. the sort that can be legitimately marked as 'minor').
My opinion differs from that of Jytdog on the following points:
  1. Everybody who is employed has a COI with respect to their employer (including WiRs and GLAM employees), but they do not automatically have a COI concerning anything one step or more removed. For example:
    • An editor who works at the Royal Society of Chemistry has a COI concerning the RSC. In general, they do not have a COI concerning the BLP of the President of the RSC, and may well have access to the best sources to improve that article. However, if they are paid to specifically work on that article, then a COI exists and they should restrict themselves to the talk page.
    • An editor who works as a researcher at the University of Wessex Medical School has a COI concerning the University of Wessex. In general, they do not have a COI concerning research done at UoWMS by other researchers, nor do they have a COI concerning BLPs of eminent alumni (unless specifically paid to edit those particular articles).
  2. Everybody who is employed, whose employer has an article, should consider noting their employment as a matter of courtesy to fellow editors. However, that should not override an editors right to privacy: it may not be possible to confirm one's employment in a small, locally-based company without outing oneself.
  3. Everybody should be allowed to participate in the normal processes of creating and revising policies and guidelines. Conflicted editors must disclose, but that should not be a bar from participation, either by editing or debating. The community is mature enough to entertain opinions from everybody, and creating a "second class" of editors is a slippery slope we should not be going down. Even more importantly, an unfounded accusation of COI should never be an acceptable reason to disbar an innocent editor from participation. Misuse of such a potential loophole needs to be carefully prevented.
  4. As a matter of principle, GLAM editors, WiRs and those employed in areas broadly related to our own mission should not be singled out as different from any other editor who has paid employment. They should not directly edit the article on their employer (barring minor edits), but should not continually have to defend their editing on other topics from baseless accusations of COI. Editors who make those sort of accusations should not be exempt from our policies on harassment and personal attacks.
I'd be happy to see Andy and Jytdog kept apart, preferably voluntarily or compulsorily if needed. I'd be more than pleased to see uninvolved administrators review the behaviour (and I include my own) at Template Talk:COI. I would also value uninvolved editors' views on whether it is acceptable for a third-party to "weaponise" {{Connected contributor}} and {{COI editnotice}} tags as was done at Talk:Joe Collier], considering that Andy was working as a WiR at History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group, and used their resources to start an article about an eminent professor of medicine who is unrelated to his employer. --RexxS (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I largely agree with this, but I think it needs to be codified, and some sort of process developed for handling conflicts over interpretation. Maybe COIN would do, I don't know. One thing is clear: the paid connected tag is not really appropriate for a Wikimedian-in-residence programme. There should be a specific tag for that so that people looking to asses specific edits can check the details of the specific programme. And the bonkers bit here is that the real spammers don't give a fuck, they just carry on anyway - this is a fight between the good guys while the bad guys point and laugh. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
We have a specific tag for WiR that I created a number of weeks ago here. Per the talk page it is already becoming controversial.
If a university labels someone within their marketing department a WiR, this does not than allow them to upload the CV's / promotional pages of all their faculty to Wikipedia without disclosure. Is this what you are proposing User:RexxS?
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Jytdog tagged and article Andy had edited with a COI tag. Understandably, that would be disconcerting for the tagged editor and is a clear accusation about COI involvement. I don't know how that can be denied. This is another indication of where this problem started and of Jytdog's accusatory position."The article where Andy and I started this clash -- a paid editor was paid to get tags removed and fix two other things and asked Andy to do that for him. What all of that is about, is subverting community review processes so that a client has a nice pretty clean PR piece. So really. No. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)"- another highly accusatory comment. The further discussion in an RfA was about adding a COI aspect to a clean up tag. Jytdog also said, "Widefox the language that WAID suggested, has only been objected to by people who operate in the territory of COI and who should be much more ginger than they are being here. I have started an RfC to try to get wider input; the parties talking here are not going to reach agreement. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)" Since Jytdog has already tagged Andy with a COI these comments seem pretty clear comments about Andy's involvement. (Perhaps to me too since I have also been tagged with a COI tag in the past and no real evidence given- disclaimer). I don't think Andy is digging a hole; I find Wikipedia narratives alarming. He's trying to get out of a hole someone else threw him in, quite a different kettle of fish, to mix metaphors. What might be a good idea is a bigger discussion about COI in an open forum where no one is accused of anything. COI accusations should not be used to control articles, discussions, or damage editors, and that is the way things are going right now. Guy, I really appreciate your measured input in this and I also appreciate that Jytdog has the best of the encyclopedia at heart.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC))
It's also very hard to list out the scenarios for PAID vs. COI vs. leaving a note on talk as best practice ("I met this guy once, so I am fixing this problem") without straying into WP:BEANS territory. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
User:Littleolive oil's statement that I placed the tag that Andy removed, is not accurate; I did not place the tag at Martin Saidler that started all this. I didn't place any of the forty or so tags that Andy stripped.Joecollier edited the Joe Collier (pharmacologist) article that Pigsonthewing had created under the GLAM program. So yes I tagged the talk page (not the article) with a "connected contributor" tag with respect to Joecollier, and the PAID tag with respect to Pigsonthewing. I made a small correction here after Pigsonthewing complained. Still not sure exactly what the complaint was about, due to the terse comment he left. But I do see that he took the PAID tag as a grave insult, and it was unwise of me to place that one. I am fine with the new Template:Connected contributor (WiR) talk page tag, btw.
There is way too much bullshit (speech intended to persuade with regard for truth) being flung around this discussion.
I am also very unhappy with Guy's claim here which picks up the bullshit being repeated by RexxS (eg diff) that the RfC has anything to do with Andy or glam.
It does not have anything thing to do with that.
The issue being discussed in the RfC came up as a side conversation distinct from what Andy was doing, if you see the discussion here between WhatamIdoing, Widefox and me, you will see that. The phrase was added to the template instructions by WAID in this diff.
Adding "without a COI" would not even have prevented Andy from removing the tag at the Saidler article, or any of the 40 or so articles from which he stripped the tag. So not only is there a claim that I am underhanded, or trying to win a content dispute by changing the instructions (which is a slimey thing to do), but also that I am stupid.
I am none of those things.
The disagreement with Andy has been difficult. Discussions of COI are difficult. I have done some fucked up things, and I pretty much know when I am have done them. This was not one of them.
But this claim, coming from RexxS who is meant to be somebody respected and board-memberish, and coming from Guy, whom I have respected in many ways, about what I am doing and who I am is not tolerable. It's a petty thing, right? Why should I really care if people say nasty shit about me? On this issue, which is so core to what I spend much of my time doing here, it matters. Its not "hey you made a mistake" -- it's "you are doing slimey shit and plan on using this to do more". And that kind of thing, coming from respected people here? It will only get piled onto from there. There is no point in sticking around to watch the shitpile grow. And the work is difficult enough as it is. So I'm done here. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC) (redact mistake. I realize this is post-close, sorry. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2018 (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.


Regarding the talk page protection, as this is a legitimate alternative account and it has a redirect to the primary account this is OK and does not prevent communication with the person responsible for the edits. This issue with the specific page has been resolved with a bot exclusion. This bot was operating under an approved BRFA. Should the scope of it need to be revisited, after discussing with the operator wider review can be sought at WP:BOTN. — xaosflux Talk 01:35, 11 February 2018 (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.

KolbertBot has twice added an https header to a URL when one was not necessary. I can not discuss this with the bot operator due to the KolbertBot talk page being protected so that only admin and template editors can edit it. So, unfortunately, I have to bring this here. The diffs for the edits are here and here and the actual link in question is here. When clicked you will see, there isn't a https header to that website URL.

Typically, I wouldn't raise a fuss over this, as it is very minor, but this is a Featured Article so any issues can cause problems for that particular article. - NeutralhomerTalk • 21:15 on February 10, 2018 (UTC)

I've replaced the archive link with a more 'current' version in the current style of the site, though it's still not HTTPS. Maybe KB needs to be wild-carded to avoid this type of situation? Nate (chatter) 22:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
User talk:Jon Kolbert is not even semi-protected.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Bbb23: True, but I didn't look there, I looked at KolbertBot, which is where we go to communicate with the bot owner. To be honest, I wouldn't have gone there as I would have expected the same thing. I don't think I've ever seen a bot owner protecting the talk page of his bot in such a manner.
@Nate: Much appreciated! I have the page watchlisted, so I'll let you know if this problem pops up with the new link. - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:04 on February 10, 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about, Neutralhomer. You said the KolbertBot Talk page. User talk:KolbertBot is a redirect that sends you to the bot owner's Talk page. That's where you should have gone.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Bbb23 and Neutralhomer:, I template protected the bot's talk page on Jon's request because people had been posting there, when they should have been bringing it to his talk. This is something I know had been done for one of Cyberpower's bots before, and given it was a self-request in talk page, I granted it, since I thought it would be abundantly clear with the redirect who they should talk to. Hopefully this clears it up. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Bbb23: As I have said before, I'm running on one year old information. A year ago we talked to bot operators on the bot talk pages for bot-related stuff and on the user talk page for user-related stuff. If that has changed, I was unaware of it. I know this now and so I will do so from here on. Prior to, I was using year old information (actually October 2016 and earlier). Again, I apologize. - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:50 on February 10, 2018 (UTC)

New York Times has described an intent to gradually move all of its content to HTTPS, not all of it is there yet, but there was consensus to change all NYT links to HTTPS in anticipation of the change here. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Specifically, while the NYT announcement says so far only "articles published in 2014 and later" are HTTPS accessible, I want to convert them all right now for two reasons: (1) it does not break older links (for example), only redirect to HTTP again; but if NYT does that on their site, at least they keep the HTTP Referrer information. And (2) as they announced they "intend to bring the rest of our site under the HTTPS umbrella", so it's only a matter of time. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jon Kolbert:: The only reason that this is a problem for me and this article is this a Featured Article. The link, when run through CheckLinks, shows as 301/Permanently Moved. For sticklers and those more strict when it comes to FA rules, a permanent 301, even if it is the website's fault (in this case they are moving everything to https), they feel is a basis for removing a FA star. Yes, I've seen it. So, I'd rather not let something petty and minor cause problems for this FA. When the link goes to https, I can move it to correct header. I check the article via CheckLinks myself (this is my FA) about once a month. - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:45 on February 10, 2018 (UTC)
It looks like Jon added a 'deny' template to the top of WINC (AM) for KB to prevent it from converting the HTTP to HTTPS; completely forgot about that (I use the same to deny the pesty DPL/NoBracket Bots from my user talk page). There will still need to be checks to see when it switches to HTTPS, but this should work pretty well until then. Nate (chatter) 01:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I know this has been closed, but I just wanted to acknowledge Nate's response (and respond myself) and thank Jon and Nate for their help here. I'll keep an eye on the article via CheckLinks per usual. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 09:23 on February 11, 2018 (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.

Portrait of King Sejong, once again[edit]

Once again, the painting by Kim Gi-chang (see has reappeared in the infobox of the Sejong the Great article. This portrait was one of the "portraits drawn by [order of] the state for the purpose of unifying and regulating the forms of statues and portraits, which were under the presidency (April 27, 1973) and the Prime Minister directive (March 5, 1973)", see As a result, Kim Gi-chang, King Sejong (1397–1450) and Admiral Yi Sun-sin (1545–1598) have quite the same face, due probably to the fact that only Kim Gi-chang was available as a model at the time of the painting.

Moreover, according to, Kim Ki Chang (김기창 金基昶) lived 1913-2001, so that we have an obvious copivio. But we need infoboxes, don't we ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  1. Take this
  2. Put it here
  3. /thread GMGtalk 12:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Help on proper name of British International School of Washington[edit]

I'd appreciate more eyes on this. The school's website confirms this as the proper title. Someone is reverting and using a legal document (primary source) to claim otherwise. Thanks, (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for one week so that the issue with the article title and the school's name can be discussed and worked out properly on the article's talk page. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I changed it back to "British International School of Washington" since that is what the school's website and logo say. I left an edit summary encouraging talk page discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks Cullen328. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thank you! (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Serial hoaxer, redux[edit]

User:Amy foster was blocked indefinitely yesterday after a bizarre death hoax (partially done as an IP) at Erika Heynatz and a long line of warnings for similarly strange behaviour. The same user has now popped up under another IP at Craig McLachlan posting the same Heynatz hoax (the Heynatz article being semiprotected).

Can someone please semiprotect Craig McLachlan and re-add the just lapsed semiprotection on Erika Heynatz because the hoaxer is still trying this on? It would be great if the range could be blocked too.

Both articles are currently in the Australian news, so this is particularly important. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Latest IP blocked. I PC'd one article, Courcelles semied the other. --NeilN talk to me 20:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


I would like to bring attention to this user's actions. I made an edit yesterday to this article:

There was a clear violation of MOS:PUFF and WP:WEASEL. The edit I made removed text from the article that was causing the violation.

Right after making the edit on the page, Fyunck(click) reverted it. I attempted to undo his revert, but he again reverted it and left a threat on my talk page.

I created a new section of the Talk page for the Rod Laver article explaining why I made the changes I made and why they were in violation of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Fyunck(click) could not refute the fact that he was making edits in violation of the Manual of Style, and made two more unsubstantiated claims. I provided evidence refuting those two claims, and provided evidence that he was violating WP:NPOV. Fyunck(click) proceeded to completely delete the section on the Talk page and say he was going to report me. Zerilous (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Quack, quack, quack. After reverting their blanking of a talkpage section, I looked at their vandalism board report and then at your contribs. Whose sock are you, if you don't mind me asking? Heiro 03:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
It's sad to me that so many people on Wikipedia focus only on the age of a user's account and not the arguments that they are putting forth. It's one of the reasons I've never created an account on here. I am not a sock puppet, and I'm here to discuss the article in question and the inappropriate actions a user has taken in retaliation for the reasoned edits I made to said article. Zerilous (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
How could you possibly know about MOS:PUFF, WP:WEASEL & for that matter, WP:ANI? GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
He's obviously not a new user. Yet he has a point, about Fyunck(click) adding uncited claims about Rod Laver being the greatest tennis player of all time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree. But they way they jumped in, then straight to ANI, and blanked all warnings added to their talkpage immediately seemed odd. Heiro 04:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zerilous: Actually, this IS sourced in the article. See footnote #9, which is the source for a statement made by Trabert in 2008. It's in the Place among the all-time great players section of the article. This is where the statement in the lede originated. (Sorry, a bit rusty on diffs). Regards, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 04:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

If so, then it's arguably valid, though kind of pointless: "some say he's the best" so by implication "some say he's not the best". Big deal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I have no qualms about whether it's "some" or "many." When you look at the very highest echelon of tennis players such as Roger Federer or Serena Williams, you find those same statements. With so many sourced in the proper sections below I didn't see a need for more sourcing in the lead. And, sorry, but with his knowledge of wiki-protocol and the recent plethora of sockpuppets plaguing tennis articles right now, I don't trust this editor. He goes to immediate personal attacks on the Rod Laver talk page accusing me of harassment with improper disparaging headers, with a brand new account. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
One other thing. To be honest, if no article said this type of thing, I would have no problem with it. In fact I originally voted to curtail them but was trounced in that endeavor. They are a fact of wikipedia. And there are only tiny handful of tennis players that fit this description. Rod Laver is certainly one of them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
His complaints against you are totally unfounded. Thanks for the good editing. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 05:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
And then his topic headers and more personal attacks, as opposed to a helpful discussion on on the Rod Laver talk page, seem way out of bounds to me. I tried to change the header and he simply piled on. So I removed the entire item, and it was put back by another editor. That stuff upset me for sure. If he's not a sock or old disgruntled editor I've dealt with in the past, I would apologize for not trusting his motives. But that talk page post has to go. It is not furthering the betterment of the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I saw you put a SPI header on his user page, but you also have to open a case on the case page. As things stand now no check is occurring. --Tarage (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
An SPI won't do anything unless a recent previous sock can be identified. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
And to be honest, he doesn't quite fit the couple of socks we've been battling over the last couple weeks at Tennis Project. The main one being a million socks of User:Maggiefluffy But it's either that or another slightly older editor who was upset with me for something in the past. He was trying to dredge up old edits of mine too and doesn't like my edits on Laver or Federer... maybe a Rafael Nadal fan I got into an argument with? I can think of one from July 2017 who got blocked, I'm just not sure though... but my spider sense has been tingling since this new guy arrived on scene. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, I am not a sock puppet, and this entire conversation has nothing to do with the reason I made this request on the noticeboard to begin with. Fyunck(click) made an edit that was a clear violation of MOS:PUFF and WP:WEASEL. Looking at this past edits of other articles, it's clear he has a bias and is in violation of WP:NPOV. When I attempted to start a discussion on the article's Talk page, Fyunck(click) could not refute the evidence I brought forth about his violations of the Manual of Style, and he proceeded to get upset, threaten me, and delete the discussion on the Talk page. Zerilous (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Just noting Fyunck reported Zerilous at WP:AIV, and I rejected the report, as none of the edits made by Zerilous could reasonably be considered vandalism. I would suggest we should start by considering whether Zerilous has a point about that article being puffery and weaselly, in which case the edits were reasonable. Fish+Karate 11:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes. How is it encyclopedic to report that "some" consider a person the greatest or worst or whatever at something? Let's stick to the facts and skip people's vague opinions. In particular, are any of the sources for the first sentence (not to mention the unsourced removed-and-readded-and-removed-and-readded sentence) scholars in the field, whether historians or scholars of sport? They all look like journalists, and they're all writing in news reports or other publications (e.g. this opinion and ticket-purchasing website) that get no peer review by real scholars. Stick to what's been published in reliable sources for this kind of field, such as academic journals or books from university presses. Nyttend (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Nyttend 100%. The article's content should speak for itself, we don't need vague statements or people's opinions to convolute an encyclopedic article. Zerilous (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
It's obvious you're not new to Wikipedia. What other accounts or IP's have you edited under? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, it's disappointing that you would rather focus on the age of my account rather than the reasoned arguments I'm making. I'm not a sock puppet. I haven't edited any other articles. I'm here to discuss the edits made and actions taken by Fyunck(click). I've presented evidence that his edits and actions are a clear violation of MOS:PUFF, WP:WEASEL, and WP:NPOV. I agree with Fish and karate and Nyttend that we should be focusing on the points I'm brining up and the evidence supporting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerilous (talkcontribs) 18:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
You don't get to dictate what the section focuses on. And your unwillingness to be straight with us only adds to suspicions about you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Unwillingness to be straight with you? I've stated multiple times that I am not a socket puppet and am not editing on another account. It doesn't get any more straight than that. I don't appreciate your attacks on my words and my character. I would very much like to get this thread back on topic and discuss whether or not Fyunck(click) edits and actions are a violation of MOS:PUFF and WP:WEASEL, and if his past editing of other articles I've described and listed demonstrates a violation of WP:NPOV. Zerilous (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Since your removal of the material has not been reverted [3] it would seem everyone agrees with that accessment and does not seem to be in contention. But since the only edits by your new account are concerning that article (and it's talk), Fyunck(click) and his talkpage, and this ANI, it does make one wonder why you created a new account specifically for this issue, since you know your way around enough presumably you have been here for awhile. Heiro 18:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The technical term is "avoiding scrutiny". Note that he admits to creating the account in order to challenge the other user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
One thing. About your statement "Since your removal of the material has not been reverted." I'm not sure what that means since he just reverted it. By that standard I added it a month ago and no one reverted it either, so it also must not have been in contention. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Since this ANI thread was started, judging by the comments above, it has gotten scrutiny and everyone who has opined so far seems to agree with the removal except for you. Heiro 18:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
That appears not to be the case from what I read here. And we also have a problem. Have you ever tried to get those statements removed from articles such as Federer or Williams or Pelé? I have, and I was crushed by overwhelming consensus that they stay. Once done I can move on right away and follow those decisions. I add to Laver and this happens. It's very confusing to say the least and I've been here a long time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Both accounts are edit-warring and could both be blocked. Which is probably why the OP made a new account - so when it gets blocked, he can go merrily back to editing under his real account. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I have to say I was treating it as a sock or vandalism from the getgo, seeing it was new and all the hateful harassment/lie charges he was throwing about on talk pages (Which are still there by the way). I still have my suspicions. That account was created just for this, and it looks like it's worked so far because here we are. I'm going to back away for a few hours here because this is starting to make me upset that it could get this far with talk of blocking. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Friendly reminder, @Baseball Bugs and Heironymous Rowe: unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry are little more than meaningless personal attacks and, in this case, serve only as a distraction. Socking is dealt with based on specific evidence and without any direct confrontation. Swarm 22:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The user admits that he created the account in order to fight on the Rod Laver article. He also refuses to explain how he knows so much about Wikipedia behind-the-scenes stuff after being here only a couple of days. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you Swarm . To Baseball Bugs, at no point did I say I created this account in order to fight with anyone on anything. You have repeatedly attacked me and made false claims against me in this section. You refuse to discuss the issue I raised, which is that a user made an edit to an article that violated the Manual of Style, and when I pointed this out to said user, he proceeded to harass me and delete the discussion I started on the article's talk page. I urge you once again to please focus on the issues that I'm bringing up. If you'd like to open up a sock puppet investigation against me, by all means please do. I am not a sock puppet and have nothing to hide, and I have no problem discussing why I created my account. That discussion would take place in another location, as pointed out by Swarm . The purpose of this section is to discuss the actions of Fyunck(click). He inserted claims into an article that violate MOS:PUFF and WP:WEASEL. His past edits to other articles demonstrate a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Zerilous (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
      • @Baseball Bugs: You miss the point. Even if this user is actually a sock, it's still counterproductive and disruptive to harass them about it here or anywhere else. If you have evidence, you should simply make a report. As I'm sure you know the standard for blocking suspected socks is really quite low. But a new account being "too knowledgable" is not considered evidence. If you don't have evidence, then keep your suspicions to yourself. Making a direct accusation of sockpuppetry without evidence is a great way to ensure that a sock will take care to not slip up and reveal any evidence to confirm the suspicion. What you're doing is literally counterproductive to fighting sockpuppetry. Best case scenario, the user is telling the truth about this being their first account, and you're thoroughly biting them. Swarm 00:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


The above reaction is a kind of apology--Ymblanter (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2018 (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.

A blatant personal attack on me: [4]--Ymblanter (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts - .....Really? ...After what we just talked about five minutes ago in the ANI discussion you started above? Come on, man! You're killin' me here! Can you please stop with the responses and calling him a "z-troll"? It's obviously not constructive and it provides no benefit what-so-ever to anybody (including yourself) when you do that... :-/ ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:11, 10 February 2018 (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.

Nationalist user who may not be able to contribute[edit]

Blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2018 (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.

A new user, Asepsia, does not seem to be able to contribute and it is starting to get disruptive. It's entirely possible that the problem is the user's lack of English skills. Messages written by the user are barely comprehensible (and sometimes incomprehensible even with the best of wills) and it also seems as if the user is unable to understand English. As a case in point: the user insists of inserting very dubious claims about the Spanish language, claiming countries such as Australia, Norway, Canada, Japan etc. as Spanish speaking in the infobox. Despite having been reverted by several users (myself included), Asepsia just keeps inserting these outlandish claims [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. I've tried over and over again to explain on the talk page that this is not how we do things, and explained that infoboxes for comparable languages (English, French, Portuguese, German, Italian etc.) only list countries where the language is official. Despite me having explained this five times now, Asepsia seems unable to understand, and just keeps repeating that it is discrimination. Because of the Asepsia's poor English, it's not clear what the alleged discrimination is.
The only other article Asepsia has edited is USS Maine (ACR-1) and the pattern is the same there; while I cannot comment on the content (not knowing the USS Maine), it's clear that Asepsia in inserting very poor English and edit wars if reverted [10], [11], [12], [13]. Because of Asepsia's disruptive pattern, we now have a high profile article (Spanish language) claiming complete nonsense, and another article (USS Maine (ACR-1)) in something that is not English. Unfortunately I have to ask that Asepsia be blocked. Perhaps the user is not intentionally disruptive (although the heavy edit warring suggest otherwise). Even in the best of cases, a user who is not able to write correct English and apparently does not understand English sufficiently well to take in arguments in discussion cannot contribute. I suggest Spanish Wikipedia may be a better place for this user. Jeppiz (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd reverted several of this person's edits to USS Maine (ACR-1) as obvious vandalism before it even occurred to me that they were serious and possibly in good faith. The edits are that bad; I doubt it's merely a language question. Anmccaff (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2018 (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.


Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2018 (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've been offered "compensation" to remove a CSD by Nikanpc1920 (talk · contribs) - Special:Permalink/825102481. Cabayi (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2018 (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:[edit] (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

  • Still the same person. After the previous 2 block expired and many warnings, he still remove content without reasons. See: [14] and more. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Numbers vandal[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by Oshwah. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this the numbers vandal again? This seems to be a different range but is making random changes to numbers on many articles. Home Lander (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if this is any particular vandal that's been discussed previously, but Oshwah blocked the IP editor already. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


User:Kapoor2013 (talk) has repeatedly moved ([15]) Draft:Stree (2018 film) from the draft space to the main space, ignoring the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Dinesh Vijan film (and an explicit warning and explanation from me at [16]), which decided that the article be kept as a draft until it can satisfy WP:NFILM criteria. This is addition to the various warnings about disruptive editing, copyright violation, and vandalism that Kapoor has accrued on his talk page. Considering this behavior has continued for over a month, I am beginning to suspect that this editor is not here to cooperate in the building of Wikipedia and is at the very least unwilling to heed consensus. Requesting action be taken. SamHolt6 (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I've requested Move Protection which should solve part of the problem. Legacypac (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I've revdelled their copyvios at Batti Gul Meter Chalu and warned them. If they commit any more copyright violations, they'll be indeffed. --NeilN talk to me 15:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Muhiyidin Moye[edit]

People may want to be observant of editing on this page that has some heat in the wider world and easily a target for contentious and unconstructive editing. Smkolins (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Rambling rant with implied suicide threat on Ref Desk talk[edit]

(non-admin closure) Appropriate action taken. TheDragonFire (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2018 (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.

Here. Suggest revdel or notify WMF emergency.--WaltCip (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Rev-deleted and reported. Amortias (T)(C) 12:52, 12 February 2018 (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.

revdel request[edit]

Dealt with. Amortias (T)(C) 15:48, 12 February 2018 (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.

Does this qualify for revdel? special:diff/825267904usernamekiran(talk) 15:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and it already has been. Amortias (T)(C) 15:48, 12 February 2018 (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.

Linking members of board to Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress[edit]

Are these legitimate additions, or a sort of spam [17] to include a marginally notable organization in many bios? Thanks, (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Good catch, I think those additions are abuse of Wikipedia to promote this organization. We also have a terrible article about it, Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, which was just tagged by User:Pablomartinez as having notability issues and being written like an advertisement. Ain't that the truth. I'm going to shorten it drastically and think about taking it to AfD. Bishonen | talk 20:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC).
AFD? I'd have been tempted to just G11 it and called it good. Courcelles (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not prepared to take responsibility for that, seeing as it has been here since 2007. But don't let me stop you from giving in to temptation, Courcelles. Bishonen | talk 20:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC).
I'm relatively new (again) to wikipedia, but I'm glad to see someone else noticed the edits. Thanks for following up! PabloMartinez (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, PabloMartinez, thanks for tagging. Er, was the IP above also you? Courcelles has reverted the additions to the bios, and I have stubbed the article. (I'm a little worried that I may enjoy cutting puffery too much.) It seemed appropriate to remove the advert tag after that, but all the other tags still apply. Bishonen | talk 21:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC).
Bishonen, original IP is not mine! Cut away! - PabloMartinez (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I know, I just found out the IP isn't yours. They've posted on my page, because ANI is now semiprotected. (Curse you, Floquenbeam.) Bishonen | talk 21:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC).
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"I love it when a plan comes together..."—Col. Floquen "Hannibal" Beam :) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 21:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Bishonen wins the "Machete Wielder of the Week Award". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hehe. Thank you Cullen328. 😈 Bishonen | talk 09:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC).
  • Another thing: This one may not be any worse than our other think tank articles (we have many), I guess. I checked out American Foreign Policy Council at random, just looking for a better pattern for the CSPC infobox, and realized most of that article was copypasted straight from the organization's website. No wonder it sounded like advertising. Probably few experienced editors check these articles in any depth, because they're so boring. Bishonen | talk 11:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC).

IP editor - long-term disruptive editing, no communication.[edit] (talk · contribs) appears to have a fixed IP number, and a history of the same pattern of exclusively unconstructive edits, going back about a year. They're sporadic, less than 40 in total, usually small changes. Many of them are unexplained removals of well-sourced material which apparently conflicts with their views about Iran. They often involve removals of mentions of Turkic, Arab, and Jewish people, eg. [18], [19], [20]. Many are clumsy changes in the attribution of the origin of some word, food dish, etc., to their own country, eg. [21], [22], [23]. The editor has never used an edit summary, nor participated in a talk page. They appear to be unaware of their own talk page, warnings, and a recent 24-hour block. They don't seem to be hostile or engage in edit wars; they're oblivious to the fact that essentially all of their edits have been reverted, by many different editors. There may be one or two edits that are not completly wrong. I suppose it must be assumed they're editing in good faith, however misguided, rather than vandalizing. But it seems to me they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, so much as to push crude nationalistic beliefs, and there's no hope of improvement if they won't communicate with anyone. --IamNotU (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

See Jasper2018 (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
When it rains, it pours... The "it wasn't me" defence would be easier to believe, despite the close resemblance of the earlier edits, if was a dynamic IP from Iran, rather than a (normally fixed) IP from KPN in the Netherlands.[24] Also, compare these edits, one from last October, and the one from yesterday: [25] / [26]. --IamNotU (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I do not know why this person response from their account on the IP talk page instead of here, but maybe we should be grateful. I believe they are incompetent (for linguistics reasons, and the aforementioned oblivion) for the English Wikipedia, and if you throw in edits like this one, yeah. Don't rightly know what to do--we could throw out an indefinite block, of course, but I'm not feeling that this morning. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what to do either. I'm ok with whatever anyone suggests. I'm not familiar with what options there might be other than blocking, it's only the second time I've posted something at ANI. I certainly don't want to interact with this person, after the incoherent tirade about conspiracies involving me and phantom Turkish fascists... --IamNotU (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Drmies, IamNotU: If there are language barriers, why not ask them what their primary language is and help them by linking them to the Wikipedia sister project of their primary language? Then they can go through the tutorials there (if applicable) and if the user wishes to, return here after being affiliated with the project. Who knows... (s)he may just find that they prefer editing on that language project instead of here and that was what they were looking for all along :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I assume their native language is Persian, and they're aware of By their own account, they've been using Wikipedia for at least four years. Oshwah, did you have a look at the monologue at their talk page? The language barrier is high, they're not able to correctly read my comment, nor the articles, that they're railing against. But that's not the biggest problem. Besides the transparent denial of making the edits in question, their essay makes it clear that their purpose is "to make it correct the way i have educated myself", and to rectify what they perceive as lies about Persia, perpetrated by a conspiracy of Arabs, Turks, and others "making story's that have no real sources" - despite reliable sources being cited. It's the undertone of neglect of wp:NDP with respect to national origin that concerns me the most. The majority of their edits have been unexplained changes in well-sourced material that results in the text directly contradicting the cited source. They're essentially a wp:spa with a wp:soapbox agenda. From what they've written, it seems to me they're rather deeply committed to this stance, and they don't wp:get the point about wp:npov, wp:reliable sources, wp:cite, and wp:original research. The effort to educate and clean up after them seems diproportionate to whatever positive contributions (so far none) they could make. On the other hand, they have responded and promised not to make any more disruptive edits, and to participate on talk pages. I suppose it would be possible to just close this for now and see what happens, but I rather doubt that anything good will come of it. Again, I'm not very familiar with what usually happens in these situations. --IamNotU (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
IamNotU - Yeah, I support your thoughts at the end. If they've responded and promised to improve and to participate on talk pages, and they haven't continued so far - I'd say that talking to the user was sufficient and we can probably close this for now and give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that they'll do so :-). Let me know if this is what you want to do, and I'll be happy to close this for now. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oshwah, I don't object, go ahead and close it if you like... --IamNotU (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Legal team needs to call?[edit]

Legal threat ? see here.--Moxy (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. They are asking what "would work". Although not very nicely. They have also now been warned about legal threats, so we can see whether they continue with such unwisely worded comments or not. MPS1992 (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Moxy: you are required to notify the user of this posting, and do not seem to have done so. I'll do that for you now. MPS1992 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Shit forgot to bad.--Moxy (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Moxy - It happens; I've forgotten to do it before, too ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeahhhh, no..... this is totally a legal threat and attempting to add a chilling effect out of anger and frustration and alongside blatant incivilty and personal attacks and while telling Walter Görlitz that he runs "a scam"- that is absolutely not gonna fly (not past my radar, at least). I've blocked the account indefinitely and let the user know with a custom notice. With a response like that, I'm happy to kindly put an end to that... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I love the fact that they are part of a Christian rock band but then use language and names like that. One of these things is not like the other. Canterbury Tail talk 15:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail - Having been raised by religious parents and all that jazz... yeah, I'm definitely in agreement with you there, Canterbury Tail. lol ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for working on this while I slept. Special thanks to @The Rambling Man: for removing the content from my talk page and @Oshwah: for enacting the block. Should a proper block notice be placed on the subject's talk page? Also, do I need to provide additional background or is the edit history enough? It was primarily this edit where the subject credits himself as a "touring member", which is different from being an actual member of the band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz - No problem; always happy to help :-). I notified the user with a custom message here, which is a perfectly sufficient notice regarding their block ;-). Let me know if I can help with anything else and I'll be happy to do so. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
You know ... while working through AIV within the last week, I've seen a pretty similar edit by a different user. Can't recall who since someone else acted on it. And can't remember the article. But I definitely remember, "Are you a moron?" and something about the image. Just a thought if this comes up again, it's probably a sock. — Maile (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Shocker..... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

ChiveFungi aggressive insulting attitude[edit]

Dear Wikipedia

I've been editing in a small way for many years, largely grammar/spelling/typos using my professional publishing skills from a life in publishing. Occasionally I write in Talk pages with suggestions, leaving it to the editors of pages to accept or reject.

I recently had cause to suggest a correction to a page in its Talk page due to personal knowledge. The page in question is Eurabia, the article attributes the creation of the name to someone in 2005, while I know as a fact that the painter Michael Bowen painted a painting in Florence in the 1980s with this title and has explained the thinking behind it to me in an email, which I quoted from. Bowen, who is now dead, was a widely traveled, non-bigoted individual who was married to an Indian woman and has a child by her, was immersed in Eastern religions, and, while living in Florence with his then Italian wife, painted Eurabia. I gave all this information in good faith, expecting it to be appreciated as yet more knowledge. Instead the author of the page aggressively told me: There's no need for white genocide conspiracy theory type nonsense on talk pages. Keep those thoughts to yourself. type nonsense on talk pages. Keep those thoughts to yourself. Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't edited anything but wrote a suggestion on the talk page based on knowledge. I am not a 'white genocide conspiracy theory type' whatever that is and hadn't even heard of this particular conspiracy theory previously, it sounds to me that ChiveFungi has an agenda and no one is allowed to disturb it. Having looked at ChiveFungi's talk page, I see a number of others have responded to his immoderate outbursts and bullying with remarks similar to mine, that his attack is unwarranted, that his attitude stinks, as also illustrated by 'Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war.'

If anyone fairly reads my comments, they will see I am not part of any conspiracy theory [I have attacked many of these over the decades myself], was not 'disruptibe editing' nor have I ever vandalised Wikipedia, and I will not be accused of it by this person who clearly has issues that perhaps make him unsuitable as an editor? His insulting, belittling attitude is unjustified and if he had read and understood what I wrote he would not have been as confused as he clearly is. Perhaps he sees all edits to his little empire here as threats? If so he needs to be reminded how to behave. My faith in the accuracy of Wikipedia has been challenged by this as also my faith in it being a respectful community and I shall never again defend it against ignorant people. PetePassword (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  • (Non-admin comment) - I have removed the ANI template from the header and placed on the accused's talkpage on behalf of filer - courtesy ping ChiveFungi Nightfury 13:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • TL;DR - Just gonna throw my 2 cents in but looking at the replies from both users personally both deserve blocking for incivilty. –Davey2010Talk 14:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed, although I think PetePassword's incivility is the greater of the two. ChiveFungi stuck to template messages after that initial comment, whereas PetePassword has gone on to call ChiveFungi a "dickhead" [27], ask "What's your mental problem" [28], and say "I suspect his ego can't handle what it sees as criticism, a common problem among juveniles" [29]. Marianna251TALK 14:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, then it looks like they both need final warnings for incivility and for making personal attacks - can we do this and call it at that? Or does anyone feel that further digging and/or action may be needed? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

Firstly, I think I was correct in my assessment that what they had posted was racist:

I have come across the term [Eurabia] however as a descriptor of what is happening/has happened to Europe with the connivance of the liberal political class - no conspiracy, just a lot of virtue signalling liberals signing their own culture's death warrant out of stupidity and an imagined multicultural world

This is white genocide conspiracy theory. The idea that white liberals are allowing their own culture/people to die out by allowing foreigners in. It's a racist conspiracy theory. I try to give the benefit of the doubt and not call somebody's remarks racist when it seems borderline. But I don't think this was borderline.

And secondly, regarding the tone - I don't think I was being uncivil. I certainly don't tiptoe around the feelings of people who write racist rants, but I don't think I was being belligerent. Merely direct and to-the-point.

--ChiveFungi (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I just removed a racist rant from this section and warned the user responsible. If you believe I did it in an uncivil way, please explain what you think I did wrong, and how I could do it better in future. Thank you. --ChiveFungi (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Leftist SJWs like ChiveFungi smear anyone they don't like as racists. This is why Trump won. Normal people are sick and tired of this vile and racist leftist bullshit. Leftists like ChiveFungi are the real racists. And no, "Eurabia" is not white genocide conspiracy theory, which is a neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. It is an established fact observed by Jews living in Europe who are oppressed and persecuted by the new Muslim immigrants. Comparing Jews to Nazis is another tactic favored by leftist anti-Semites like ChiveFungi. And the multiculturalist agenda of leftist elites is well-documented. Just look at your very own Multiculturalism article. Many countries, including once-homogenous Sweden, have it as official state policy. In London British people are a minority. The BBC even indoctrinates children with its "educational history programmes" into thinking black Africans were a large part of the British population during the Roman occupation and in the Middle Ages. It's evil and colonialism when white people move to non-European countries, but "culturally enriching" and "diverse and inclusive" when non-Europeans move to Europe. ChiveFungi is a good example of white self-hatred and hypocrisy. So Eurabia is hardly a "conpiracy theory" but a fact. It was popularized not by an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi but by a Jewish woman named Bat Ye'or who was herself the victim of Muslim anti-Semitism that forced her and her family to flee from Egypt to Britain where the Muslims are following in persuit now in droves thanks to the leftists' demographic engineering.

I wouldn't call it racist, just right-wing editorializing based on original research (to put it charitably). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
From the content, tone and writing style, I think that IP could easily be PetePassword. It's certainly in line with opinions they've expressed elsewhere, e.g. [30][31]. I haven't filed an SPI because it's probable that they forgot to log in rather than any other motives. Marianna251TALK 23:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Really? Look at it this way. 1. Events happen as reported by Users P & C concerned. 2. User P brings it to ANI. 3. People start agreeing with User C, who User P is clashing with. 4. An IP address (let's call that I) makes his first edit. It's a questionable one, sounds like User P's writing tone and it supports User P's viewpoint. 5. It is agreed by other users B and M that I is probably P. That seems to be more than just a "Forgot to log in" situation to me.

P.S. This is the only edit I'll be making here. I have been asked to minimise my use of ANI, but come on, this is suspicious. P.P.S. In case this goes like it usually does and I am savagely attacked by a hostile IP, I will report that here. (It almost always goes like that.) TomBarker23 (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts are "meh - why call everything racist?" I would be very slow to call anyone a racist, or to call anything a "racist rant" and if anyone involved here is doing that, they should stop. Focus on the merits of the edit, not the adverse label which with could might pejoratively characterize the edit. Xerton (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

User inserting false titleholder[edit]

Socks (plus one additional) blocked by Bbb23. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 12 February 2018 (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.

Rndhnr has been on a cross-wiki campaign inserting a false titleholder in the article on the Duke of Gandía. I recently added an official reference (Official State Gazette, notice from the Spanish Ministry of Justice) on the current titleholder. Suspect that user Rndhnr is the same as the ip who also edited the same article adding the same individual and also the same as HistoiredeFrance who left me a message claiming that the line is not accurate according to a soon-to-be-released book on the history of the Borja (Borgia) and whose edit in the article on Elzéar of Sabran, where he added the same false titleholder, was undone. Maragm (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Adding another suspect IP who just reverted my edit removing false info. Maragm (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2018 (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.


Philblue7 (talk · contribs) has been warned many times about their unsourced contributions and WP:OWNership of the KidsClick article, including adding sources that are promotional WP:ADVERTs from the parent company of the children's block, and arguing about finite details such as a show being taken off for a week as permanent, along with programming grids which are overly complicated for what is a block of children's programming and should read as simple as possible. Editor also tried spinning out an article that violated WP:NOTTVGUIDE and has continued to insert guide listings into the KidsClick article despite the multiple warnings to cease and work with other editors within our policies. I feel like some kind of reinforcement is needed here because they aren't taking any advice to heart. Nate (chatter) 22:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Clearly an SPA. No discussion on talk page.[32] What kind of sanction you think would be appropriate? It seems that he is gaming WP:3RR. Lorstaking (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
After this edit where they want programs in airing order they came on the air (rather than sensible alphabetical order), I think a reinforcement block is needed; we've had to remove schedules they've left too often. I'd like to hope mentoring helps but they only take the 'screaming at reverters in edit summaries' mode of communication and have never used the talk page for communication (and I'd hope they would have taken some time to comment here, but that hasn't happened). Nate (chatter) 21:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Block maybe harsh. I think we need extended confirmed protection for some days, either he will move on or return to edit warring someday but since he has presented no argument that why we should support his side, I believe he will get over the consensus. Lorstaking (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
We had a semi-protect on the article a couple months back; they merely ceased editing/flirted with 3RR to keep out of trouble, and they're already long auto-confirmed. Nate (chatter) 09:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


Persistent disruptive editing and soapboxing, WP:TALKNO entries at

  1. Talk:Mitragyna speciosa, such as this and this.
  2. Mitragyna speciosa, such as this and this
  3. User talk:Zefr such as this and this. Suggest that Ptb011985 be advised about WP:TALKNO, WP:MEDRS, and WP:CIVIL. 2 week timeout would be suitable. --Zefr (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
User Zefr has been trailing my edits for last week, reverting them, commenting on all talk entries, and providing his own POV. After being warned I attempted to advise user he was engaged in same behavior, but he disregarded it by removing from talk page. Warning him is harassment according to him, but he does the same thing repeatedly on my talk page and doesn't consider it harassment. Though agreement lacks, talk discussion on the article has been productive; nothing constituting soapboxing. User just disagrees and is just trying to bully his POV in via a ban. Ptb011985 (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing there in his examples. There is a discussion at hand and several users basically agree with me, several basically with Zefr. The edits cited are a matter of opinion, and other editors agree with my position (that the 'no evidence' claim should be attributed to the FDA), including one who started a talk page section on the subject. Zefr just appears to be trying to stifle the discussion in order to preserve an alleged consensus. I submit neither of us have made any significant policy violations, but if you ban one of us you must ban both. Ptb011985 (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

FrankM113 edits to MacKeeper[edit]

This account and many others blocked as socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2018 (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.

FrankM113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been routinely editing pages related to the controversial Mac software MacKeeper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (as well as Zeobit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Kromtech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), the developers of the software), adding unsourced information in violation of WP:NPOV. He has been warned repeatedly to stop making these edits, but has not responded to any of the warnings he has received on his talk page. He has also had an issue with accusations of promoting a YouTube channel. Based on these facts, I would say he is not here to improve Wikipedia. —AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk
) 17:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I am just adding true facts to the articles about MacKeeper so I'm here to improve Wikipedia. As for the YouTube channel I am not promoting it, I'm just interested in the channel and have stopped since Tenebrae told me to FrankM113 (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2018 (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.

Heated discussion at Talk:Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award[edit]

As you suspected, Giants2008, Mark Thomas II is a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2018 (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 everyone. I haven't initiated an ANI report in nearly a decade of editing, but I suppose there's a first time for everything. User:Mark Thomas II made some additions to Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award recently, in the lead and table. Some of the additions are still in the article pending discussions at the talk page linked above, while some were removed and sparked some edit warring that brought Mark to 3RR. He was warned on his talk page, which seemed to anger him, and the discussion has gotten away from the topic of whether the additions benefit the list. Among the highlights are me being a hardcore article owner (with this as his evidence), me "operating WAY OUT OF LINE here for a very long time", the entire admin corps being called "THUGS", this comment joking that people with a certain medical condition are being euthanized, and vast knowledge of past Wikipedia abuses despite having 70 or so edits. In short, things have gone way off course. Would an uninvolved user mind telling Mark to calm down and focus on trying to build a consensus for his edits, as I don't think he would listen to me at this point? Thanks for any help you can provide. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. The three admins currently involved are not enough.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2018 (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.


Closing with no action. Any discussion on guidelines and the MOS can happen at the relevant talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2018 (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.

Joefromrandb (talk · contribs ·