Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive979

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Content dispute, NPA, & AGF at Militia Act of 1903[edit]

I would like to inform of an editing situation relating to the article Militia Act of 1903. This involves Billmckern (talk · contribs), Springee (talk · contribs), Trekphiler (talk · contribs), myself, and IP editors since December 2015. Since December 2015, Billmckern has editing the article in an attempt to defend( 1, 2, 3, 4) content outside of the scope of the article but within the scope of the article Gun politics in the United States. In doing so he has personally attacked myself, and has not adhered to good faith. I believe the content is relevant to the gun politics article, but the content added to the Militia Act of 1903 article falls outside of its scope, and there has been a consensus built that shares my opinion, leaving a brief neutrally worded mention of its mention used in gun politic debates. Individual has come close to violating WP:3RR (1, 2) however, I have attempted to inform Billmckern when they get close to reaching violating 3RR, and had received rather cheeky response; additionally he has accused my multiple times of advocating for something when I haven't. If these editing falls within WP:ARBAP2, then the editing being done at the article in question might mean sanctions would be potentially issued, which I hope is not the case.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Read the article edits. Read the comment threads. I'm not the problem. RightCowLeftCoast is pushing an opinion that's at variance with facts, has resisted all efforts to find a compromise or consensus, and is not telling the truth about me. Billmckern (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
The edits made to the article today, as well as the response above - clearly show that a content dispute is (at least currently) ongoing. Therefore, I've applied full edit protection to the article so that all parties involved can discuss their concerns and issues on the article's talk page and come to a consensus. This is a better solution than chasing individuals and wagging fingers at them over edit wars - let's take this discussion to the article's talk page and work the problem out together, everyone :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Was this edit vandalism, and did it warrant the template issued?[edit]

As per heading.

O1lI0 reverted this edit with the summary of "Reverting vandalism or test edit", and placed a template warning on the IP editors talk page.

I maintain that both the edit was in good faith - as the edit summary stated it "Removed outdated statistic from 12 years ago" and so there was no need for the template issued, and I removed it from the talk page. O1lI0 disagreed and reinstated the template with the summary of "I said There are other better ways to change the data, like updating." - although I can find no evidence that he did this, and mentioned it to him on his talk page, which he subsequently removed with the summary of "See Re in your talk page." He then left a message on my talk page RE which doesn't really explain anything, apart from it seems to support that he still considers the original edit to be vandalism, or a test edit.

So, the question I'm asking is - was the removal of 12 year old information, accompanied by an edit summary that said exactly what it did, vandalism (or a test edit) and did it warrant the warning issued?

I've also informed Gilliam, because although not involved directly, it was their comment that made me look at the article in question. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

If I want to add a note, I will say that the expired information can be treated as history and does not need to be deleted. What is needed is an update. When it is not necessary to deletie expired information is a kind of test edit in my knowledge.O1lI0 (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
That's not a test edit. It was clearly an intentional edit that accomplished the desired effect. It would have been been more appropriate to revert the edit and say, as you have here the expired information can be treated as history and does not need to be deleted. What is needed is an update. GMGtalk 16:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree, and I feel there are serious competence issues with O1lI0. After reading their communication attempt with Chaheel Riens, I glanced at their edits and found this removal of a reliable source from the Goertek article, along with removal of text with an edit summary of removal of spam, for a company that is on Forbes Top 50 Asian companies list, and is regarded as a leading Chinese electronics company. And a block threat to User:Le Petit Chat based on an imagined editing as an IP with no supporting evidence. In fact that user's talk page is full of threats from O1lI0, including this warning for restoring a valid cite that O1lI0 had removed. SilkTork (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. As a new French user, I didn't know how to solve this problem. I had chosen to ignore User:O1lI0 warnings, since they were at least stupid (such as the accusation of using IP adresses I had no link with). May I remove O1lI0's threats from my userpage now ? -Le Petit Chat (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Le Petit Chat, you may remove virtually anything from your own userpage. GMGtalk 19:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • O1lI0, I suppose I'll say this much, in the hopes that you are amenable to friendly advice, and that maybe this can be resolved in a way that doesn't need to escalate further. I've done a little editing in languages I don't speak fluently (or at all), and it's possible to do so and be productive, but when you do, you need to proceed very carefully. For example, I don't undo anyone who reverts me on a non-English project, even if I feel pretty sure they were wrong, and my edit was an improvement. When someone reverts you, or tries to correct you, its more likely that you've misunderstood some nuance, and that you should listen to their advice, because it's difficult to understand nuance when you're not speaking your native tongue.
If you have a disagreement, instead of arguing, it's better to admit they might be right, and if needed, ask for a second opinion. If you'd like, you can ping me in these instances and I'll be happy to help. The examples provided by User:SilkTork are problematic, and they're a trend we need to fix. You especially need to be careful of issuing warnings, because these can drive new editors away, and for long-time editors, can make things much worse, in a way that isn't necessary. Are you open to this guidance going forward? GMGtalk 00:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
After reviewing O1lI0's contributions going back a bit further I've just issued the user a competence warning against reverting other editors and issuing inappropriate threats. SilkTork (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
[1] and [2] feel more like WP:REVENGE than WP:INCOMPETENT for me since he suspected User:Le Petit Chat to be an IP user that he is in conflict with. (inb4 this IP address gets accused)--130.102.13.50 (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, the vibe here seems to be that while there was nothing wrong with the reversion, per se, the subject of the reversion wasn't vandalism or a test edit, ergo the warning template was not applicable. I'm removing it again. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Chaheel Riens, whether the warning stays or goes it probably a moot point by now. The IP is registered to AT&T, and mobile IPs change frequently, meaning if the person hasn't seen it by now, they likely never will. The real issue with the warning is that we don't want to confuse new editors by barking at them for what they believed was a good faith edit, when we should be explaining whatever the problem was so they can fix it. GMGtalk 13:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
True - but the editor who applied the warning template is still around and editing; he will see that as per the above discussion mistakes get corrected. Let's not lose sight of the fact that O1lI0 made no effort to explain what the problem was in their own eyes either - apart from their opinion that it was vandalism. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • O1lI0 is a frequent editor on Chinese wikipedia [3]. At a glance, his/her Chinese is much better than his/her command of English (at any rate, vastly better than my Chinese). Of course, we don't want to discourage people from editing enwiki just because their English is less than flawless, but perhaps it explains the communication difficulties. Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Fiachra10003, according to Google Translate he was also blocked more than oncein Chinese wikipedia for "adding meaningless, non-modern Chinese characters" so I doubt he is good at Chinese. It's more like what he said were incomprehensible in general.--130.102.13.26 (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Apart from what you have mentioned above, I would also like to add that O1lI0 has been frequently abusing templates like {{expand language}} when the corresponding articles are really no better than the English ones. --117.136.36.250 (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that. I wonder if he thinks the template is an Interlanguage link? Anyway, I have watchlisted his page, so if there are any future reported issues with his editing, I'll take a look and deal with it. SilkTork (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Long-term disruptive editing by LoveVanPersie[edit]

Hello. There's a serious problem with User:LoveVanPersie, who keeps adding incorrect IPA transcriptions to Wikipedia articles (there are about 50 wrong transcriptions that I've fixed in the last four months + some that I fixed back in August/September). He's been warned multiple times not to do that and he just ignores that. This is clearly an issue of WP:COMPETENCE and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He used to tell me that he's 'truly grateful' for all the corrections I'd make (I know, I should've reported him weeks ago) and then go on making the same mistakes.

For previous reports/discussions, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics/Archive_12#Broad_IPA_Edits and Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_130#LoveVanPersie's_transcriptions. In the second discussion it becomes clear that he can't really read relevant literature to improve his knowledge of phonetics/phonology because his English is too poor. He's relying on other users to clean up after him (mostly me) and teach him phonetics/phonology for free (mostly me).

Bear in mind that this list is far from complete and it could be just the tip of the iceberg. I'm afraid that is precisely the case.

Spanish

[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]

  • Having serious problems with identifying stressed syllables and either incorrectly guessing them or mishearing them (12x);
    • In these edits the transcription is sourced but it's still wrong: [35], [36]
    • These edits ([37], [38]) are further evidence that he's unable to consistently identify stressed syllables. He added correct IPA and then made it incorrect by misplacing the stress mark.
  • Mistranscribing words with irregular/adopted foreign pronunciation (5x or more, I'm not sure how to count them);
  • Lack of awareness of phonotactics, which caused him to consider /st/ and similar syllable onsets permissible and to think that words can end with [m] in isolation just because the word-final consonant is spelled ⟨m⟩ (3x);
  • Mistaking ordinary Spanish letters for IPA symbols (3x);
  • Mistranscribing the velar nasal [ŋ] as if it were alveolar [n] (2x);
  • Typos (2x);
  • Guessing the IPA (1x);
  • Mistranscribing the tap [ɾ] as if it were trilled [r] (1x);
  • Mistranscribing the semivowel [w] as a full vowel [u] (1x);
  • Mistranscribing word-final [s] as [z], an allophone that can only ever occur immediately before voiced consonants (1x);
  • Mistranscribing words with regular pronunciation as if they had an irregular pronunciation (1x).
Slovak

[39] (this one was discussed on my talk page), [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]

  • Not knowing the rhytmic rule, which says that no more than one long vowel can occur within one word (3x);
  • Guessing the IPA (2x);
  • Copying and pasting IPA from [46] to [47] without checking it's correctness (it was seriously incorrect as [r̝] occurs in Czech, not Slovak. In fact, the absence of that sound is one of the defining characteristics of most Slovak dialects.);
  • Changing [ɲ] to [n] just because he thought that it sounds more like the latter (even if it does, the correct transcription is still [ɲ]) (1x);
  • Mistranscribing words with irregular/adopted foreign pronunciation (1x).
Serbo-Croatian

[48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]

  • Writing [v] and [ʋ] in the same transcription and getting them wrong anyway (1x);
  • Labelling a latin spelling of a surname as an IPA transcription (1x);
  • Typos (3x);
  • Mistranscribing the syllabic trill [r̩] as if it were non-syllabic [r] (1x);
  • Mistranscribing the postalveolar [ʒ] as dental [z] (1x).
English

[56], [57]

  • Thinking that just because a surname is spelled one way it means that all people pronounce the same (and neither of those guys pronounce it /ɡuˈtʃiːoʊni/!) (2x);
  • Mistranscribing a surname (1x);
  • Changing a correct transcription to an incorrect one (1x).
Dutch

[58]

  • Mistaking a long unstressed vowel for a stressed one;
  • Mistranscribing a long [yː] as short [y], which is an impossible pronunciation before /r/.
French

[59]

  • Mistranscribing the open vowel [ɑ̃] as if it were mid *[ɔ̃]. He probably just copy-pasted that transcription from Florian (name) without checking it (it's wrong).
German

[60]

  • Changing the IPA from correct to completely incorrect. The transcription is so incorrect that you can wonder whether he posted it on purpose.
Polish

[61]

  • In this edit, he added the transcription of Kuba to the existing transcription of Jakub Błaszczykowski and didn't change the final consonant of Jakub from voiced to voiceless. This produced a seriously incorrect transcription that no native speaker would be able to read without making an effort and without sounding strange.
Slovene

[62]

  • Not an IPA issue, but he called Simonović a Slovene surname. It isn't - it's a foreign (Serbo-Croatian) surname used by some Slovenes. Native Slovene names use ⟨č⟩ instead of ⟨ć⟩, reflecting the fact that Standard Slovene has only one voiceless postalveolar affricate (/tʃ/).

To his defense, he does seem to be learning and he now knows that e.g. Spanish words can't begin with /s/ + stop or that Slovak words can't have more than one long vowel. But what good is that if he keeps making tons of other mistakes every month?

Also to his defense, most of his Serbo-Croatian transcriptions are spot-on.

Once again, I apologize for not reporting him sooner, which I should've done.

Pinging @Adam Bishop, Aeusoes1, Medeis, Nardog, Nihlus, and No such user: who might be interested in this. Mr KEBAB (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Sheesh, KEBAB.-EEng

@EEng: Can you elaborate? I know that this is a lot to analyze, but it needs to be resolved. I don't want to clean up after LVP anymore. Mr KEBAB (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Your post will take time to digest. OK, seriously, it does seem there's a problem here. However, I'm bound to say that I am seriously, seriously skeptical of the usefulness of IPA pronunciations anyway, since you could fit the people who understand them in a phonebooth. If anything, they should go in a footnote, not clutter up the first few words of each article. But that's not, of course, what this thread is about. EEng 03:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
EEng, our article Electrical engineering does not have any IPA in the lead. Perhaps we should make that a general policy, along with IAR. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen328: See WP:PRON. Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Personally I find IPA transcriptions useful, at least for languages I already know...but anyway that's besides the point. We were speculating on the Reference Desk that LoveVanPersie is actually the banned Fête (talk · contribs), although maybe they are just coincidentally similar. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
ə foʊn buːθ. Apparently I could be fit in there.
I am astonished that User:EEng missed the opportunity to post this.
@EEng: You may as well argue that musical notation shouldn't be included in articles about music because most readers can't read music, or that the output of the various Template:Math templates shouldn't be used on mathematics articles because most readers can't understand the formulas used in, say, differential calculus. I sure as hell can't.
IPA is to linguistics as the periodic table is to chemistry.
That said, IPA transcriptions should be like any other entry, not just personal opinion but backed up by references from reliable sources, and I agree there is an ongoing issue here. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)--Shirt58 (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I fully support the use of IPA in linguistics articles, just as I support the use of math notation in math articles and chemical notation in chemistry articles. Outside of such articles, these specialized notations should be used with discretion, not plastered everywhere the way IPA is. For example, the article on Entecavir doesn't start out Entecavir (C12H15N5O3), sold under the brand name Baraclude... The chemical formula belongs in an infobox or footnote, not underfoot right at the start of the article, and the same principle should be applied to pronunciations. EEng 14:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Shirt58 that IPA transcriptions should be referenced. An ordinary editor who has often been confronted by unverifiable changes in them.SovalValtos (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I notified LoveVanPersie of this incident. Jip Orlando (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

No harm in that but just to let people know, LVP was notified by Mr KEBAB, just not with a standard template or at the bottom [63] Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Kebab, for being so patient while the community catches up to this issue. You've put in a lot of work in tracking LVP's disruption and cleaning up after him/her.
Quite a few of these look like LVP meant to put a correct transcription but transposed letters, like he/she couldn't be bothered to check before hitting submit. I don't get what LVP's endgame is here. If s/he truly wants to help the project, adding sloppy transcriptions is not helpful. I'm particularly troubled by the mistakes with Spanish transcriptions, since Spanish has a very transparent orthography and transcriptions should be obvious to someone, especially after months of practice and feedback from other editors. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Since he's aware of this discussion and continues to put IPA into the articles despite that (I've already caught him misidentifying stress in two words - see [64] and [65]), I think it's safe to assume that he just doesn't care. Wikipedia is a personal blog to him. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Bump (more incorrect transcriptions: [66], [67], [68], [69]). Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I have a slightly informed hypothesis (not saying it's likely, just that the likelihood is enough above zero that I'll mention it) that the purpose of LVP's project is to benefit various data mining operations that use Wikipedia as a knowledge corpus, and that someone is paying him to do this. The intended consumers don't care much about the error rate as long as the info is mostly right. They should really be working with Wikidata but apparently Wikidata's content policies are not to their liking. IMHO an encyclopedia is supposed to be a reference work made for use by humans, so I wouldn't tolerate this. I'd support an immediate stern warning, followed by a block if the problem continues. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually I better look into the contribs some more before giving much credence to the above. I can't do that now but will maybe try tomorrow. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

In reference to this discussion there is also another user who is adding unsourced IPA in football articles. It's blocked User:HankMoodyTZ, who is evading his block from multiple IP ranges Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HankMoodyTZ. Example of his edits:[70]--Oleola (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Oleola: interesting that the IPs appear to be based in Bosnia, and a lot of LVP's edits are related to Serbia/Croatia etc. HankMoodyTZ was blocked in February 2018; LVP, while editing before then, certainly increased their edits that same month. I wonder if they are a sock/meat puppet... GiantSnowman 10:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
HankMoodyTZ noticed LoveVanPersie's edits and left him a message in February[71]. Then HankMoodyTZ started to change IPA's added by LoveVanPersie[72]. So I don't think that they are connected.--Oleola (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal[edit]

Please see #Topic ban proposal - LoveVanPersie below. GiantSnowman 10:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Mongolian Beef personal attack others[edit]

Do not import disputes from other language Wikipedias into here. --NeilN talk to me 16:04, 24 March 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.

In Special:diff/832032179, User:Mongolian Beef had a personal attack on me. He underestimate my English level, and deleted my warning given through Twinkle. Please help check if he had any violations at Wikipedia. — Sanmosa 06:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I hope your English writing in articles is better than it looks here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:57, 24 March 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.

IP address issues[edit]

Despite me using WP:AIV to block IP addresses in the past for this in the past, I was referred here. So, the IP address 38.27.128.203 has been giving me a headache the last few days. They have been making edits to the Cincinnati Bengals roster template and newly acquired Cordy Glenn. While the edits on Cordy Glenn have stopped despite my warning on their talkpage, the edits on the template have not. They have repeatedly added a number for Cordy Glenn, despite him not having a number yet per the teams website their Twitter account (sometimes numbers are announced on social media) or even Cordy Glenn's twitter account. Meaning, no reliable source exists giving him a number. There's a couple other players they are doing it to as well. I honestly just want them blocked for a day or two since they are not heeding my warnings.--Rockchalk717 19:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: - I've semi protected the template for a month. If there are any articles which would benefit, just shout. Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Same issue from this editor at Template:New England Patriots roster ‎ and Brandon Bell (American football). We go through this every year, I don't understand what's behind people filling in made-up numbers (is there some advantage to a fantasy game in selecting published numbers?). It's evidently not a single person, it's geographically widespread. About the only thing I could suggest would be semi-protecting all the NFL roster templates until training camps start (July 16). Tarl N. (discuss) 20:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I will do that. I appreciate it!--Rockchalk717 22:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Tarl N.: - I didn't get that ping for some reason. Have semi'd the template for a month. Might be worth starting a discussion at WP level about having these (and similar) templates permanently semi-protected if this is an annual issue. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that the template should have been semi-protected. It has received a lot of edits by IPs, and most of them don't seem to be disruptive. If User:38.27.128.203 has been told several times that their edits are incorrect, but persists in making those edits, then that IP might need to be blocked, but I don't think semi-protecting the pages is the right solution. Calathan (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Per a request at my talk, I've unprotected the {{New England Patriots roster}}. That done, I will say that many IPs are not stable and blocking one IP might not have the effect of stopping the person behind that IP from editing. If there is a need to re-protect, then it can be done. I would still encourage discussion at WP level re either permanently semi-protecting these templates, or semi-protecting them each year at certain points on a recurring basis. Mjroots (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Category[edit]

Closing - My understanding of it is that the bigger shops are stores and the smaller ones are shops however having done research on it I'm apparently wrong .... The category has since been filled up again so I'm closing this. –Davey2010Talk 17:04, 25 March 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.

Hi, Could an admin move Category:Discount shops of the United Kingdom back to Category:Discount stores of the United Kingdom please as I'm unable to move it, It was moved by an editor who has a rather big issue with "shop" and "store" and is on a changing spree, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

"Shops" is the standard word in British English for what we call "stores" in American English. I've restored that circumstance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Stores and shops are the common termonogly and as explained to the editor they need to seek consensus before making all of these changes. –Davey2010Talk 16:40, 25 March 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 Professor Asia[edit]

Professor Asia blocked for self-promotion.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 25 March 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.

There is Professor Asia (talk · contribs) using what seems to be a Special Purpose Account posting links to what seems to be his own papers (Vanderpal) in both blatant violation of WP:COI and scholarly values: his papers have practically no citation and are published in unreliable vanity journal [73]. I reverted and informed him of COI without an effect as he keeps reposting. Limit-theorem (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

To User: Limit-theorem Limit-theorem (talk · contribs)

You have not clearly shown a violation and you are not a subject matter expert in the area of finance or insurance. The articles submitted as references are directly related to the subject matter and are NOT published in unreliable vanity journals, that is rather insulting. The Journal of Accounting & Finance (Peer Reviewed) have many years of existence with ISSN registration and have respectable H scores (9) on Google Scholar and are included in Proquest, EBSCO, Cabells and many other databases.

Limit-theorem you have also violated the Wikipedia rules by mentioning my lastname. You have violated the Outing Guidelines of Wikipedia. I never gave permission to use my last name. "Avoid outing Further information: Wikipedia:Harassment § Posting of personal information, and Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence. It requires that Wikipedians not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer if necessary to Wikipedia:Checkuser. Do not ask a user if they are somebody; instead one can ask if they have an undisclosed connection to that person. If revealing private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can seek the advice of functionaries or the arbitration committee by email." Source:<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Avoid_outing>

Regarding Wikipedia COI rules:

Citing yourself Shortcut WP:SELFCITE "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it." Source: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest>

I did not violate this rule and the rule allows for this to occur with in reason and I conformed to this guideline in the posts and citations. You have accused me of violating a policy that clearly allows for me to cite my own work if relevant and conforms to the content.

BTW, the H Score measure for the Journal of Accounting & Finance is 9 for 2017 and above the average H-score of all business journals average. The publication is peer reviewed, has an ISSN, and is listed and publications accepted for years on Google Scholar, Cabells, Proquest, EBSCO and other academic databases and is a recognized journal, see link. <http://www.na-businesspress.com/JAF/jafindexcitation.html> and <http://www.na-businesspress.com/jafopen.html>

The other article regarding Equity Index Annuities was written by 3 experts in the field often quoted in media, and yes I am one of the co-authors. That article was published in the Journal of Financial Planning, the foremost journal (Peer Reviewed) used by academics and industry practitioners and was the first study of its kind and is ground breaking. If you were a subject matter expert in that area I would not have to explain this. The article is relevant, important and does not violate the COI rules. In fact the co-authors are a prominent Wharton Professor of Insurance and a leading expert on Equity Indexed Annuities nationwide.

If we can not come to an amicable resolution then I suggest a independent third party through Wikipedia review the material and matter. You have violated Wikipedia Outing Guidelines and my privacy and that may require further action unless we can solve this matter.

Professor Asia (talk) 13:04, 25 March 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.

Administrators alert[edit]

WP:DENY ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

following link confirms an editors disruptive edits...he reverted even admin edits.

administrator reopend the bad NAC. But desruptive editor reverted admin edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julio_Sadorra



(Jundiejj (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC))

I'm not going to revert this obviously bad faith editor again. It's already on ANI. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Its a disruptive edit...one administrator re opend the bad NAC ....A desruptive edtor closed the discussion...is it correct procedure?
I want un involved admin openion..the involved desruptive editor my be revert my complaint...

(Jundiejj (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC))

(Jundiejj (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC))

DuckyWhucky9[edit]

(non-admin closure) DW9 and 25 others wrapped up and tied with a bow thanks to Bbb23. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:13, 25 March 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.

DuckyWhucky9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Their username quacks like a duck, and they've made multiple potentially-controversial edits to WP:ARBAPDS articles. I don't suspect them of being a sock of any specific editor (though there are several sock-puppeteers active in American Politics), but I do suspect this isn't their first rodeo. Can an uninvolved admin (or possibly a checksuer, if they feel it appropriate) assess the situation and act accordingly? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Please don't call me a checksuer.Face-smile.svg --Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking along the same lines myself: Athena from the head of Zeus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:05, 25 March 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.

Editors removing !votes at AFD on their own accord[edit]

Ok, all's well that ends well; let's get busy all of us. Cheers. Lourdes 11:32, 24 March 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 reverted all my edits pertaining to AfD votes just earlier. I had assumed, based on an earlier report at WP:AVI, that the edits came from a troll. I had no idea that the reporting user was using his Huggle tool to make decisions on which edits were vandalism. (Personally, I don't use Huggle to judge which edits are vandalism.) You can see the full context of the discussion on the IP's talk page, and at User talk:Thewinrat (another involved user). LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

(EC)I understand your frustration, but I see a few things happening here. I see LightandDark2000 making a mistake, and then in the first instance, correcting that mistake. Now granted they failed to do this in the second, but it can be chalked up to missing it. What I don't see is you trying to engage with either editor about these edits on their respective talk pages. It looks like you were mistakenly reported as a sockpuppet, but that you have since been cleared. I understand that this can be very frustrating, but IP's are volatile and sometimes editors jump first and look later. In the future, try talking to these editors rather than heading directly to ANI. I think you'll find you get a better response. In the meanwhile... I hope everyone can maintain civility and assume good faith, because it honestly does look like a mistake and nothing more. --Tarage (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It could certainly be called a mistake, but not if you read my comments, which are all entirely valid !votes. If someone is not reading the comments/!votes, and just blindly deleting, then yes it is possible to make a mistake.104.163.147.121 (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
How is deleting the following a mistake? Obviously they were not reading what they were deleting. "*Delete the five sources come from two different sources. None of them are independent. A search turns up nothing but a healthy selection of republished autobiographies. Fails all notability tests."104.163.147.121 (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I would recommend dialogue in future instances (if any). Usually, you never know whether or not a user is reasonable until you talk to them, and you won't find out their reasons if you don't ask. Personally, though, I've been treated much worse before, so I know how terrible it can feel when this happens. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I warned you, and the other editor) on your respective talk pages after the first instances I found. I cam here after I saw three of my edits struck by you. Obviously you did not read and evaluate my comments before striking them, but instead blindly deleted and struck. Anyway this can be closed. Have a nice evening.104.163.147.121 (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed, dialogue. That goes both ways, and I suggest L&D2K hangs fire on striking AfD !votes until they have just a little more experience there. The danger with a situation such as this is that it can convey the (doubtless unintended) impression of judging edits by whether their editors have accounts or not. Having said that, this was not a sufficiently egregious offence, .121, to bring straight to AN/I without any previous dispute resolution. And I'm deliberately not going to draw anon's attention to dusty old WP:WCAA—presumably they know that tavern well enough by now :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 11:36, 24 March 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.

G1f2d[edit]

Blocked indef by Bishonen. --QEDK () 16:32, 25 March 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.

Can an admin please clean up the mess that this user G1f2d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has created via multiple duplicate articles (among other things). Sakura CarteletTalk 02:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Given that content -- a vanity bio -- is duplicated at:

it's clearly an attempt to spam Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 03:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AIV. --QEDK () 05:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
The user page was deleted by Anthony Appleyard. I deleted the articles created in the wrong namespace (templates, Wikipedia project pages, etc). The mainspace article is tagged with a prod already. I'll leave a warning on G1f2d's talk page. I'm kind of surprised he hasn't been blocked yet. I think a warning might suffice for now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Can you give an example of an editor whose first edits were to create a vanity bio who didn't end up indefinitely blocked? Let's save ourselves another ANI thread, OK? EEng 09:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 16:16, 25 March 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.

Inappropriate reason for deletion (notability)[edit]

(non-admin closure) Really just a content/AfD dispute. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:32, 25 March 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.

Please help me with... the issue relating to one of the articles that I have created - Leoni Wiring Systems Southeast. The article is currently nominated for deletion (for the second time in last 7 days). However, I'm not able to find opinion from other users concerning article's notability. The nominator has agreed in a discussion that all references in the article are independent and coming from secondary sources, but that some/all of them are not intellectually independent (in his opinion). In my opinion, the nominator has a tendency to give misleading statements based on his subjective interpretations of references that are in the article. So far, I have tried to politely explain each of the issues he raised, and even to add additional references concerning article's topic (i.e. company) notability.

One key notice: Apparently, the nominator is trying to push for changes in WP:ORGIND criteria of WP:ORG, as shown here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Intellectual_Independence. I think that this has been the main reason on why he was so persistent in his "non-notable statements" in nomination. In my opinion this is unacceptable behavior, where you discuss and nominate article due concerns over its notability, while at the same time you agree (in a discussion) that there are no violations of criteria for determining topic's notability (mainly in WP:ORGIND), except that the sources used in article are "not intellectually independent". Currently, nearly all references in the article are in line with WP:ORGCRITE and WP:ORGIND, and give clear indication of topic's notability as per WP:ORG. However, someone is trying to decide whether the topic of article is notable, based on subjective interpretations of references and personal nonadopted proposals of criteria changes in WP:ORG.

Please, write your opinion about it and give your opinion on whether is this good way of discussing where someone is referring to non-adopted proposals for criteria changes. And by the way, never explicitly pointing to it, thus way leaving a room for confusion in a discussion.--AirWolf talk 22:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This reads like canvassing to me. Number 57 22:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It certainly is not my intention. I am addressing particularly to use of nonadopted criteria (i.e. intellectual independence) in discussions in general when determining topic's notability.--AirWolf talk 22:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
A new version of the notability guidelines for organizations and companies were adopted today which has a detailed discussion of the meaning of independent source, complete with a truth table to check sources against. Jbh Talk 23:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Just noting here that the the first sentence of the OP's second paragraph is a bit of a misrepresentation. HighKing's "pushing" was a month ago, a number of other editors, notably Renata (talk · contribs), were "pushing" harder, and the change was finally implemented earlier today by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) in accordance with a "strong consensus" in an RFC closed by Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs), in which HighKing was only the eleventh support !vote. I have no idea how the OP came across the month-old comments by HighKing specifically, apparently without reading the rest of the discussion, but this looks a bit like bad-faith hounding... Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. I have overseen the NCORP guideline discussion 3,4,5 and 6 sections. It will be great to see how these guidelines are going to be implemented in articles covering companies/organizations, especially in this era of media reporting where dependability and independence is questionable in 90% of news articles. But glad that this article is one of the first where the discussion started concerning intellectual independence of content created by journalists. --AirWolf talk 09:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Another hysterical over-reaction by AirWolf to any opinion other than his own about Leoni. Yawn! Cabayi (talk) 10:56, 23 March 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.

Permanent topic ban[edit]

(non-admin closure) IP editor 209.93.13.37 blocked for 1 month, and pages protected. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:28, 25 March 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.

For serial violations of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTTHERAPY, I would like that Special:Contributions/212.42.186.84 (FastNet International Ltd, Wokingham, UK) and Special:Contributions/209.93.13.37 (INFONET Services Corporation, Farnham, UK) receive a permanent topic ban from all articles concerning East Europe and its history.

Copy/paste from User talk:NeilN

209.93.13.37 has issued another personal attack ("jealous Hungarian"), he learned nothing from his two previous blocks for violating WP:NPA. Greetings, Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: You'll need to provide a diff but that's a pretty mild aspersion. --NeilN talk to me 02:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
It's [74], but if you consider it mild, no block is required. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The IP is a serial abuser: "undo your stupid changes" [75], "so dial down the pride, would you?" [76]. It seems like he has en enduring WP:CIVIL issue. Also "How dumb do you have to be? You're a no one. People way superior to you have written those things, yet you refuse to accept them, as does the other moron. Ooo, big deal, you're going to ban me for a month of something, who cares..." [77]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
End copy/paste.

"then why don't you get off your lazy butt and put it in whatever order or format you like" [78], "If so, go slap yourself you clueless moron!" [79]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: for future reference you can use the {{Talk quote inline}} and {{Talk quote}} templates to quote more effectively. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Can you topicban an IP? --Tarage (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Their past IP: Special:Contributions/81.3.111.10 (Timico Limited, Farnham, UK). Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Not what I meant. If the IP changes constantly, I don't think you're going to be able to 'topic ban' an IP. It's not going to stick. --Tarage (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I just blocked the IP for one month. This is the 3rd block in 2018. They are also editing on the Romanian Wikipedia, but some other admin needs to look at that, if necessary. — Maile (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Per WP:DUCK and geolocation Special:Contributions/212.42.186.84 is the same person. They edit the same article upon roughly the same subjects, at roughly the same time (differences are of several hours) from roughly the same location. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Both the article and its talk page have been semi-protected for one month. If the situation reoccurs after the protection is removed, you are welcome to either post here again, or at WP:RFPP for another protection. — Maile (talk) 21:08, 21 March 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.

Constant OR/SYN at Battlestar (reimagining)[edit]

I've blocked this user for copyright violations in spite of repeated warnings. Regarding this issue, they have received a final warning by Bish, and I have told them that that warning will continue to stand indefinitely in the case of their being unblocked. Swarm 23:39, 25 March 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.

Furious Buddha has been adding extremely lengthy swathes of original research and synthesis to the page Battlestar (reimagining); as well as off-topic material relating to the 1978 TV series. I've left several messages on their talk page asking them to stop, and tried to be as descriptive as possible in my edit summaries reverting it. But it does not seem to have helped. The edit history of that page is rather embarrassing to look at, tbh - perhaps I should have asked for help sooner. One problem is that this user's efforts began nearly a year ago, but I didn't notice the content until much later. I don't seem to be getting through. How should I handle this kind of thing better in the future? ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User notified. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yikes, that entire article needs to be gutted. It's a ridiculous mass of OR and Synth as you state. Lines such as "The exact layout and size of Galactica's flight pods is unknown, but is clear from analysis of pictures they have a 1:6 (width:length) ratio.", "This would mean Galactica's flight decks are at least 200-feet, probably closer to 250–300 feet or so in width, roughly the same a Gerald Ford class aircraft carrier.", "Based on this evidence we can assume a flight pod is at least 500–600 feet in overall width, and 3,000–3,600 feet or so in length." Yes, most of the article is pure original research and has no place on Wikipedia. Furious Buddha should be given one last warning over this, and the article trimmed down to referenced material only. Canterbury Tail talk 17:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Zenswashbuckler, you've no need to be be embarrassed. We appreciate both your valiant attempts to reason with the user and your alert here. You have spent a lot of time on this, so thank you. I have given Furious Buddha a final warning. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC).
Yes Zen, you've done nothing wrong. You've tried and you've been patient with this user which is much appreciated, but it's quite clear they don't get what an encyclopaedia is or how Wikipedia works. I think they'd be better off in some fan wiki somewhere. Canterbury Tail talk 22:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Sinceprecisely none of the content of that ridiculous collection of fancruft belongs in an encyclopaedia, I suggest that the article be summarily deleted, and all of the 'contributors' be told to find some other location for their nitpicking obsessions. 86.131.45.175 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I had intended to argue against the deletion of the article, but upon going through the diffs... It's been a rather long time since the work itself, on that page, was encyclopedic. At the least, it needs heavy editing and cutting; a complete overhaul, really. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:25, 25 March 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.

Editor won't stop adding pointless links[edit]

Blocked indef. Swarm 21:17, 25 March 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.

AlchemTarun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

As you can see from his talk page, I (and others) have tried to talk to AlchemTarun several times over the past several months about overlinking and adding useless or incorrect links to articles. This has included linking to words like science, prominent, potential and damage, where these links do not help to provide context to the article. He has also added links to incorrect articles, and was informed about this by another editor. He has also been adding pointless links inside citations, such as in [80], which another editor informed was inappropriate, but this was ignored. I don't see any edits he has made other than adding bad links. At this point, he has contributed nothing to the encyclopedia other than providing more work for others to do to undo these links. Natureium (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like disruptive editing to me. I'd be prepared to give him a temporary block if he continues. Deb (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

AlchemTarun continues to make these edits, and has never edited a Talk: or User talk: page. I'd support an indef to force him to engage with the community. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:42, 25 March 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.

Is it proper to include potentially inflamitory summaries of external articles in the "mentioned by media" section of a talk page?[edit]

Summaries removed; meta discussion with constructive intent can take place at WP:VP. Swarm 21:14, 25 March 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'm not sure if this is the correct location for this question. Recently an article talking about the AR-15 and NRA pages came out in The Verge. A few other sources have since parroted the article. This material has been added to the article talk pages with commentary that I feel could be seen as inflammatory[[81]]. The article summaries seem arbitrary and the view of the person posting to the talk page. What talk page guidelines would apply? Is it reasonable to include notation that the articles are disputed or that most are repeats? I feel these have been added in a way that could suggest a moral high or low ground with respect to the views of the editors involved. What and how do talk page standards apply to such content, especially when specific editors are named in the articles? Thanks. Springee (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's at least copy it here, so everyone can see what we're talking about:
What about that is improper? Is it the qoutes to show their relevance. Note that this replaced a shorter version which also had quotes, so I just followed that example. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't see a problem, although if the OP wants to propose using different quotes, that should be considered. I've only scratched the surface of being involved in gun-related articles following the Parkland shooting and it's quite obvious that there is a dedicated group of editors defending a particular POV. For example, there are four open RfCs at National Rifle Association in which our content policies and guidelines are being interpreted very differently by the same editors depending on whether the proposed material is laudatory or critical of the NRA. - MrX 🖋 12:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Then you should try to be more consistent :) . Kidding aside, we should be careful with claims of inconsistency. We all carry biases and should be careful about suggesting it's just the other editors least our own edits are subject to critical review. Regardless, thanks for the input. I think we should consider changing the quotes. Springee (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The quotes... The first one is the same quote used in the previous version, placed there by a different editor. The second is not a quote, but a comment, without naming the editor. I could have named that editor, and named all the other editors in the others, but I didn't. I didn't think that would be right. Give me credit for that. That article is very different from the Verge article; it's ruthless, so I didn't even try to pick a quote. The quote from Newsweek is the very first sentence. The quote from Haaretz is from the second sentence. Those quotes are fair quotes which summarize the gist of the content and problem, a problem which I did not create. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The Week and Haaretz should probably be removed since those are just parreting the Verge article. The edit summery is pretty problematic and bad faith "Added more articles. BTW, several editors are named and their edits discussed. Don't wear such mentions as badges of honor, because this whole affair has dishonored Wikipedia." while keeping a polemic list on their talk page titled "Wikipedia gun nuts in the news" and listing everyone involved and their perceived issues, going on about a cabal of some sort. The apparent attempt to shame specific editors with it was very inappropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
"Bad faith"? I suggest you keep "boomerang" in mind before you go further down that road. What I have on my own talk page/sandbox is my business, and there's nothing improper with it. Sheesh, it's hatted!
I did not create the problem, or get myself named in RS for violating policies here, so don't try to blame me for the situation. Those names are not in the Press template. That wouldn't be right. BTW, this isn't outing either. Editors who do things get named all the time here, but we still keep their real names private.
I don't see any point to escalating this, as that would just draw more attention to the situation and to those editors, whose usernames would then become known to a broader audience. Right now we are the ones who know, and few others. If your concern is to protect them, then silence is golden. If your real concern is to somehow get me in trouble for not doing anything wrong, then boomerang and Streisand effect kick in and any (feigned?) concern for protecting those editors from shaming will be revealed as a sham, because attacking me for YOUR problems will only reflect badly on you and them. I have no interest in pursuing this further, so don't push my buttons and get me started. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: Please read WP:POLEMIC especially point 3, but it ticks the boxes for basically all of them. PackMecEng (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to all who have weighed in including BullRangifer for posting the contested material (and thus opening themselves up for potential criticism). Springee (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. As far as I'm concerned, we don't need to go further. I have enjoyed the conciliatory conversation on my talk page and we're good. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Mentioned the external sources talking about the page specifically is fine, I would just eliminate the quotes since that's one editor's take-away from the articles which is not necessarily right or wrong. Given the heated discussions on these articles, those invested should avoid adding anything that could be taken as spin, but it is factually true these external articls about WP's pages were published, and that's fine. (They're short enough and all about the pages; if it were to target a specific page or section, that may be where I'd use a quote only to aid in navigation). --Masem (t) 15:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I do agree with that as well. There is nothing wrong with putting external sources about the article in those article. But presentation is important. PackMecEng (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Fine with me. Someone else is welcome to remove the quotes. I have to run now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Since no one else has done it yet, I went ahead and did it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the bigger picture, I'd like to see the community step up and respond to the content of these critical articles. My approach would be to break them down point-by-point and discuss each of the issues which have been brought up. I think we'll find a mixture of misconceptions/inaccurate information, problems that have since been resolved and ongoing issues that still need to be addressed. This is an opportunity to self-reflect and educate the public/media about how Wikipedia works. This could take place on WikiProject Firearms where curious media folks are likely to come across it, or at a community-wide venue such as the NPOV noticeboard. –dlthewave 17:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

That is both an interesting and constructive angle. Would a discussion on the Firearms board be a violation of "not a forum"? I'm also not sure about NPOVN since we don't have a specific issue we are trying to address. I'm not trying to be obstructionist and I think such a discussion would be very productive since, if nothing else, I believe the articles cast things in an unfair light. Even if we don't agree on specific content I suspect we would agree on some of the things I think the article got wrong. I won't initiate it but I will happily contribute. Springee (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that would precisely be a violation of WP:NOTFORUM, very much so. Well put, Springee. It sounds like a discussion worth having, but please have it somewhere else, on an actual forum. There are other high-profile websites out there where curious media folks would equally, or even more so, be likely to come across it. Links to it at Wikiproject Firearms would be fine, AFAICS. I'm not well-acquainted with internet forums, so I'm shy of suggesting, but, uh, say, a Reddit thread? Or.. I'm sure some people have better ideas. Bishonen | talk 18:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC).
I brought it up at the Help desk as well. It's relevant to improving the project and addressing potential problems, but I'm not sure if there's an appropriate place to do it. –dlthewave 19:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
As far as a response to the articles goes, I think there's potential for an op-ed in The Signpost. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think including quotes from the articles is necessary. I don't think most journalists appreciate that Wikipedia is striving to be an encyclopedia and how that is different from what the media does. Compare the Britannica article - it has no mention of media stories that ascribe a special importance to the AR15's role in mass shootings in the United States. Here is a book source from ABC CLIO that discusses the media's imprecise use of the term "assault rifle" and recent academic studies that have found that handguns were used in more mass shootings than ARs (including Virginia Tech). These are the types of "details" that journalists routinely ignore, but editors of an encylopedia take seriously, especially where academic sources are critical or dispute key parts of the media coverage.
  • If our editors truly believe that a particular type of gun makes future violence more likely, I respect their opinion, but I would point our that there are numerous scholarly sources that have discussed the role of the media itself and the influence it has on people who are already at risk for this type of behavior [82] [83] - I think we as editors have to recognize that the media coverage about this can't be considered neutral because they are self-limiting to actively minimize what has been called the "contagion effect" (by focusing on the gun, apparently) and that we should be aware of the difference between media sources and academic sources when discussing whether something is due for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Seraphim System (talk) 14:50, 23 March 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.

Edits at an article under Arab-Israeli conlict Arbitration Enforcement by a new user[edit]

(non-admin closure) Article placed under ECP. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:38, 25 March 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.

New user Parttime711employee's third edit was to the article on Dershowitz—an article whose edit summary states it's under Arbitration Enforcement restrictions barring edits by users with fewer than 500 edits and less than 30 days experience. I restored the text, which the other user subsequently removed. This also appears to be a violation of the AE restrictions on the edit summary.

I have two concerns:

  1. Is there a technical issue with the protection at Alan Dershowitz, where the page should be protected against edits by users who don't meet the 500/30 criteria?
  2. Can an uninvolved editor review the situation, revert if appropriate, and take such actions or issue such guidance as are needed with this new editor?

Thank you for assistance and clarification with this. —C.Fred (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred: No admin actually applied ECP to the article. I have now and logged it. The new editor is now aware of 500/30 and discretionary sanctions so it's up to them to follow the restriction, even on articles that aren't on ECP yet. --NeilN talk to me 23:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Can Parttime711employee be blocked to stop further disruption and send a clear message that personal attacks and edit warring are not a way to begin your career here? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Has been discussed user's talk page.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
For my part I'm not convinced they are beginning their career. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC).
For my part I'm not convinced you are not making this personal. But everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt, and given your decided lack of evidence in support your 'opinion', I acknowledge that from time to time we all entitled to a harmless opinion about one another; that is, since you opened that door with yours. Thank you.Parttime711employee (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Why is the entire Dershowitz page under ECP? If anything, edits under ARBCOM should be restricted, but we shouldn't be in the business of locking up pages because a section or two is potentially an issue. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    • WP:ARBPIA has always taken a very broad interpretation of what falls into these restrictions. Even a weak connection, like you seem to feel this is, is still under WP:ARBPIA restrictions. - GalatzTalk 18:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
      • That is usually kept on an edit level, not necessarily on the article. The goal should be to have as few as possible locked articles. If Dershowitz is a problem for ARBCOM, then we can proceed and lock it down, but one person editing doesn't usually mean there is a problem. And if you look at the edit in question, it has nothing to do with the IP Conflict. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I tried to get Arbcom to change one word of the remedy ("feasible" to optimal") here to allow for these types of situations but didn't get anywhere. --NeilN talk to me 19:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Just my tencents, but IF THERE IS ANY POV, ambiguity, or even a protracted interest (same as POV), perhaps it would be better that interested wikipedians not become involved, i.e. cease and desist, there are LEGIONs of wikipedians to do the objective work; if you cannot remain objective, do not bother. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.37.45.134 (talk) 19:48, 22 March 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:Kev519[edit]

Blocked indef. Swarm 20:39, 25 March 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 sent many messages to this editor about creating incomplete and unreferenced articles like List of 1981–82 NBA season transactions, a list with no entries and no clear sources, just external links - there are many like these. I have been contacting the editor for months, but they continue to edit but not respond to my messages (see User talk:Kev519#Sources and communication). I have directed them towards WP:V, WP:BURDEN and WP:Communication is required, but they won't talk. In 18 months of editing, they have responded to no one and other editors have also raised concerns.

They have been at ANI before in Aug 2017, but I can't find the record. They have also been investigated and found to be using a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kev519/Archive. Boleyn (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not know how to make the tables of other transactions because it is complicated. (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  • The August 2017 ANI. Search for it because the braces make it difficult for me to get it to jump to the thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This user has been adding empty tables and other similar edits to "XXXX in professional wrestling" year articles as well. He has been told to stop multiple times yet continues to add this unhelp information. - GalatzTalk 13:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: While this conversation is going on, the user is continuing to add empty tables despite clearly being told to stop multiple times. See [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] as well as many other years - GalatzTalk 13:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Also while this has been going on, Kev has continued to create articles like this List of 1988–89 NBA season transactions, incopmlete and with no clear references. Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Yup, same terrible format. Just create something and tell people to go somewhere else to find what they are looking for. - GalatzTalk 21:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Now in addition to adding more sections with just mentions to go elsewhere, such as [89] [90] [91] he is also adding tags that say a section, that clearly isn't empty, is empty, such as [92] [93] - GalatzTalk 22:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I renew my call for us to simply eliminate all coverage of professional "wrestling" since no one would miss it anyway. EEng 23:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Except in this case, for this user, you would need to eliminate all sports coverage, as this user is an equal opportunity offender. - GalatzTalk 00:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Is this website filling up maturity-challenged people? You should be ashamed of yourself for even writing something so insanely dumb. This is an ANI about a disruptive editor, no one gives a rats ass about your personal feelings on pro wrestling, contribute to the discussion at hand or kindly leave. You're kinda behaviour is exactly what causes "drama" that you seeminlgy hate.★Trekker (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to add, even if this is a joke, it's not contributing at all to the discussion, so please leave it out.★Trekker (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm serious. 1983_in_professional_wrestling isn't part of the sum of all human knowledge; it's a debit against human knowledge. EEng 04:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
What exactly is it debiting? - GalatzTalk 14:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Professional wrestling is one of those things with the property that each additional fact you learn about it actually makes you dumber. EEng 17:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Go away, no one wants you here and you contribute nothing of value. You should be the subject of an ANI yourself if you don't lay off. You're not funny and you disrupt.★Trekker (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we please get some sort of admin action here? I guess to match the empty tag he was putting on the non-empty sections earlier, he is now creating empty sections and putting the expand tag on it, across tons of articles, such as this [94]. - GalatzTalk 01:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes this guy is very insistent, it's rather bothersome and I don't know we he keeps getting to edit if he's been using dock puppets in the past.★Trekker (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I’d like to add that this user has created similar issues with video game lists, adding sources that are considered unreliable per WP:VG/RS. I left him a polite message after doing some reversions, but have heard nothing in response. Red Phoenix talk 04:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I left him a message directing him to respond to this complaint. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: Just an FYI, he is still editing currently, even after your message. See [95] and [96]. - GalatzTalk 15:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Are those edits wrong? They're unsourced, certainly, which is problematic on its own. But I really know so little about professional wrestling that I can't tell if some random edit is an obvious hoax or good-faith. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: I meant that he is ignoring your request to come here and respond. - GalatzTalk 16:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
My observation from 2017: "This editor has done some dubious stuff IMO and seems to find unusual ways to push the boundaries in the grey area between good faith and vandalism." 9 months later and on it goes.. -- GreenC 19:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Based on this (and my own experience at NPP with their uber-stub NBA transaction articles), I'd support a ban on this user creating or moving articles. Nothing beyond that seems necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:31, 25 March 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:DeAllenWeten[edit]

Let this be a learning experience: attempting to reason with this user was a complete waste of time. Blocked indef for ignoring the final warning and continuing to refuse to communicate. Editors are all reminded that WP:V and WP:NOR are policies, and that communication is required as a matter of policy, and that failure to communicate is considered to be disruption as a matter of policy. Swarm 20:28, 25 March 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 contacted this user seven times with no response, see User talk:DeAllenWeten, especially User talk:DeAllenWeten#Sources. The messages were about creating articles with big issues, mainly that they were unreferenced. Another editor also contacted them about adding unsourced content. They have only ever responded to one talk page message although they have been editing for a year.

I have directed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:BURDEN and WP:V, but they won't respond or address the issues. Boleyn (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

DeAllenWeten is continuing to edit but not respond or comment here. Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It's been several days now, where DeAllenWeten is editing but won't engage. I think it's time to move to an indef block. Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I've had a look, and I understand your frustration at the lack of response, however, I'm not seeing a significant problem with their editing. The user has created several articles, most of which have been reviewed and accepted (only one page creation was not acceptable this year, compared to over 30 which have been accepted0. Errors seem minor and varied - sometimes the article is sourced, but doesn't have categories, or has a source, but it's not reliable - such as IMDB. Creating imperfect articles is not grounds for blocking - see WP:PERFECTION. While it is helpful if editors do as much as possible, simply adding content to articles is acceptable, even when the content is unsourced and involves a living person. We only immediately remove unsourced information about living people when that information is likely to be challenged - see WP:BLPSOURCE. Chris troutman's response here, where he cites the information that DeAllenWeten added is the way to go. If someone is finding a particular user's way of editing to be irksome, sometimes the best response is to ignore it, and concentrate on other ways to improve Wikipedia. The stress involved in trying to deal with it is often not worth it. I don't think we're at formal warning stage, however I'll leave a note for DeAllenWeten, stressing that when editors express concerns about someone's editing that we either expect to see an improvement, or an explanation. SilkTork (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with not being perfect. After being messaged several