Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive982

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

Noticeboard archives



(non-admin closure) Blocked indefinitely, and asked to appeal in six months. DarkKnight2149 17:11, 26 April 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 editor fourteen times since January trying to discuss their creation of unreferenced articles. Unfortunately they wouldn't reply and continued to create unreferenced articles (see User talk:Mansukhsurin#Sources, User talk:Mansukhsurin#Sources and communication and the several messages below User talk:Mansukhsurin#ANI.

The discussion at ANI was auto-archived, although they did receive a 'final warning' on 13th April that 'Any further disruption in any form will result in you losing your editing privileges completely' User_talk:Mansukhsurin#Final warning, ([1]. Barudih is an example of one of their creations, where they have been asked to add their sources or discuss the issue, but won't. They don't even use edit summaries, so there's no indicatino of why they make their edits at all, although they have been editing (though not that much) for 4 years.

The original ANI was for refusing to communicate (and they did not comment at the ANI) and for continually creating articles with serious issues, including no sources. They then left me messages at my talk page User talk:Boleyn#Shall I quit my contribution and User talk:Boleyn#Rules don't necessarily make any one a perfect person. which I found rude and not showing the attitude we want from a Wikipedia editor. I then saw they had left further similar messages at User talk:PamD because of PamD's comments at my talk page. Since then, they have created another unreferenced page, National Coalition of People Living with HIV In India, which another editor swiftly tagged for speedy deletion. I don't know how to communicate to this editor that we collaborate, don't leave messages like this for other editors, and that we do add our sources. Boleyn (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  • The user obviously believes they are editing in good faith but the level of English, the lack of communication and edit summaries, and the large number of deleted contributions give me pause. I'm leaning to a short block, but will wait until the community has made some comments here, or if indeed Mansukhsurin responds. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
  • Everybody is new at some point but being willing/able to learn is essential. I support a block to get their attention and see if this will change their approach. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @SpacemanSpiff: Pinging admin who left this editor a final warning on 13 April. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping, I haven't followed this editor's work after my warning, but this, that, and the other talk page responses to warnings or suggestions don't give me any confidence that a short term block will be of any help here. Let him contribute to and then apply for an unblock here after six months. While we can be empathetic to such editors, it should not be at the cost of our productive editors. —SpacemanSpiff 02:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Came here from the note Mansukhsurin left on Kudpung's talk page. After glancing over Mansukhsurin's talk, I'm surprised they were not blocked before over WP:CIR and I don't know why the prior post here did not result in some remedy. If they cannot or will not cite sources, and this seems likely, then a block here is in order. Do they cite sources at I'll have a look. Perhaps it is best the take their own suggestion (e.g. User talk:Boleyn#Shall I quit my contribution) and concentrate their efforts there.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
They've copy pasted the same non response to my talk page. Feel a long term block is in order.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've blocked now and asked to apply for an unblock after six months of editing at (which would be the native language Wikipedia for him), he's just continued to spam talk pages after this started, but nothing meaningful. I see no need to bend over backwards for this anymore. —SpacemanSpiff 14:12, 24 April 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.

Question about category addition[edit]

(non-admin closure)This is an issue for the article talk page, where there is already an ongoing discussion. If further outside opinions are needed, consider notifying related WikiProjects, which can be found in the banner at the top of the talk page. GMGtalk 13:47, 25 April 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 would like to have your opinion regarding the addition of the category Arab inventions for the Arabic numerals article. It is indisputable fact that these numbers in their current form were developed by Arabs of North Africa and Muslim Spain. The question is whether these numbers are worthy enough to be considered an invention or not. Some users have raised their doubts over the claim citing the fact that no other numeral glyphs have been labelled as an inventions in Wikipedia. My stance is that the Arabic numerals are a special case since they are the most used glyphs in the world. So in your opinion, should the Category:Arab inventions be added to the article or not ? Viaros17 (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not an incident requiring administrator attention. Please pose your question at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Fish+Karate 07:59, 25 April 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.


No admin action required. –Davey2010Talk 21:32, 26 April 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.

User:Skaiser1234 and User:Skaiser12345 are very obvious socks. It may be useful to perform a sleeper check too. Thanks. L293D ( • ) 20:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

If you look through the user creation log some time, you'll see that it's exceedingly common for users, especially new users, to create more than one account. These are not usually classed as "socks", especially when declared[2] and only one account has made any edits. Is there a wider issue or a problem with their edits? -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Nope. I just saw that and I wasn't really sure what to do. L293D ( • ) 21:25, 26 April 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. and MarnetteD[edit]

This doesn't belong here and hopefully belongs nowhere if it's over.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 27 April 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 reporting myself and MarnetteD for edit warring at said article (now hopefully ceased). There is/was a dispute in each contributor's assumptions of good faith, where both saw each other in bad faith?

Additionally, MarnetteD said please do not post here again at Special:Diff/838513527, which doesn't seem to be seeking collaboration while I admit to being rude too. (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC); edited 14:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

A) this is not the edit warring notice board. B) the edits in question do not constitute a 3rr violation. C) per WP:OWNTALK my removal of the IPs posts were permissible and D) I'm off to see Infinity War so it will be several hours before I can make any further responses here. MarnetteD|Talk 14:39, 27 April 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.

Legal threats[edit]

I just reverted/deleted legal threats here and here, and I've blocked the account. It came shortly after this and this, both apparent attempts to remove the same person's name. The username suggests it is this UK law firm, and the IP geolocates to Edinburgh (though UK IP geolocation is often unreliable). I'm bringing this here just to ask for a few other eyes on these pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I invited them to address any concerns/take down requests to the WMF, where they have people who get paid to wade through legal mumbo-jumbo.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Editor making massive ammount of non-consensus edits[edit]

Windhunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is making a controversial edit in an enormous ammount of articles. His edit has to do with the grammatiically wrong change of "Bosnian" to "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" in the lede of many bios. Another thing is his unsourced addition of ethnic categories. He was warned at his talk-page by another editor (see User talk:Windhunter). He has been reverted by varios editors but has been edit-warring and ignoring others. FkpCascais (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

First User:FkpCascais lying about facts, Bosnia and Herzegovina is full name of the country.
Bosnian-Herzegovinian is properly term in Croatian, Serbian and Bosniak language.
Only "Bosnian" is forced by Bosniaks users, it is regional term for only some part of country. Also in country living 3 nations, and "Bosnian" is insulting term for people in Herzegovina region.
Bosnian-Herzegovinian is grammaticaly correct.
Windhunter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Windhunter, the name in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian here is totally irrelevant, this is an English-language Wikipedia and we write English here. Second thing, before making a massive ammount of changes as you are doing, since you noteced many editors had reverted you, you should stop reverting and edit-warring and start building consensus. If you believe each person from Bosnia and Herzegovina should have in the lede chaged its labeling as "Bosnian" to "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" you should be aware that it is a widely-scoped edit which if accepted would be changed all around, but if not, it want, so there is no point in changing a hundred articles without consensus for it. PS: "Bosnian" is certainly not insulting in any way to anyone from Bosnia and Herzegovina (maybe only for a hand-full of extreme nationalists which refuse to accept being part of Bosnia and still hope to revive Herzeg-Bosnia?), that just sounds as a bad excuse for your edit. @Iridescent:, I am an over-decade long editor at preciselly at this area. I brought the issue here so it could be noteced by the community preciselly so I wouldnt do any unilateral decitions myself. You templating me with warning of discretionary sanctions looks bad and actually disencourages ediors from next time bringing an issue to the attentioon of the community. It was not me who opposed this editor, but other users before me, I just brought it here because it implies numerous articles. I am fully aware obviously of the template you gave me, but I dont think your procedure was correct as I just brought the issue to your attention here and thsi way seems I am participating in some wrongdoing. FkpCascais (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
FkpCascais, Windhunter, before this goes any further I'm putting a {{alert}} template on each of your talk pages. This does not imply any wrongdoing by either of you, but is a formal notification to ensure you're aware that this is a topic on which Wikipedia policy varies from the norm; please make sure you both read it before continuing any further with this discussion. The linked page looks complicated, but the part you have to be aware of is Topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we should use the full name of the country on English Wikipedia. Some people in colloquial talk often shorten Bosnia and Herzegovina only to Bosnia while others say only Herzegovina. I don't think we should use colloquial talk in the articles or prefer one over another. If there are a lot of articles that need that change, Windhunter I suggest you to open a RfC. I have some experience in opening RfCs so I can help if you are not familiar with the procedure. (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Still not making an account? You have "some experience" do you? But you were indef-banned (case Asdinsis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)). However, your advice is acceptable (you know WP procedures too well to be an IP), Windhuter should really aim for consensus for such wide-range edit as he has been doing, and certainly not appliying it by force and edit-warring. I personally have no sides here, but the adjective "Bosnian" is clearly the one correct in Engligh language rather then "Bosnian-Herzegovinian". FkpCascais (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Fkp, as always, you would just like to ban people. You could have asked this editor to seek a consensus over talk page, without a report. (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
As an observer, I'd like to comment that whilst we should apply wp:commonname when writing about foreign language topics, the question of whether "Bosnian" vs "Bosno-herzegovinian" is the common name is murky as both seem to be used commonly. Perhaps a compromise such as the one currently in place for anglo vs american spelling can be applied here. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 14:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
All I asked is just for the editor as a newby not to make such an ammount of edits without consensus first, and since I noteced him having been reverted by several editors, not to agressivelly edit-war to reinsert his edit. And, as a personal remark, specially to drop the "I know it all, you guys who have been editing here for over a decade you know shit"...-behavior. That is an absolute no-no in an already sensitive area. FkpCascais (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
This editor is nationalistically motivated, as he said at top "Only "Bosnian" is forced by Bosniaks users, it is regional term for only some part of country. Also in country living 3 nations, and "Bosnian" is insulting term for people in Herzegovina region." The background of this lies actually in the inability to drop the expansionistic aspirations of some extremists ammong the Croatian community in Bosnia and Herzegovina (concentrated in Western regions of Herzegovina) and their denial of Bosnia and Herzegovina and revival of Herzeg-Bosnia. The fact is that his statement is untruth. None of the editors reverting him are Bosniak, nore "Bosnian" is imposed by Bosniaks, but rather inn English there is a wide use of the adjective "Bosnian" to refer to people, things or events from Bosnia and Herzegovina. A clear exemple is the Bosnian War (and not "Bosnian-Herzegovinian War" despite having taken place in Herzegovina as much as in Bosnia (region)). We all know sports teams of Bosnia and Herrzegovina are largelly named in English-language press as "Bosnian team"s. The user must leave aside his political motivations and just demonstrate that "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" has more use in English than "Bosnian" when refering to something or someone from Bosnia and Herzegovina. FkpCascais (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The main point here is that the term "Bosnian" has been widely used without problems for almost two decades here on en.wikipedia. This relatively new editor arrives and starts making this change of "Bosnian" to "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" in hundreds of articles. He was reverted by numerous editors. Per Wikipedia:BRD he should not continue edit-warring, but rather discuss and reach consensus for his edit. But he opted for agressively edit-warring. That is why I am here, his attitude is unecceptable whereas he is wright or wrong. He should demonstrate English-language literature and sources use more "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" than "Bosnian" which by now doesnt seem to be the case, and till then his edit-warring should be sanctioned. FkpCascais (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
User:FkpCascais First you lied that "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" is grammaticaly incorrect. "Bosnian" is sometimes shorten version of Bosnian-Herzegovinian maybe because its a very long demonym when we speak about nationality, but only "Bosnian" has other connotations such as regional because Bosnia is one of the smaller regions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Maybe you are nationalistically motivated? You called a whole constitutive community as a extremists only because I think the whole demonym is more correct. And for your information, Herzegovinians of other nations term Bosnians consider as a offence. Football site transfermarkt for all players put Bosnia-Herzegovina as nationality mark, not only Bosnia or Bosnian. There is more examples like: the Bosnian-Herzegovinian American Academy of Arts and sciences, Bosnian-Herzegovinian Film festival, Bosnian-Herzegovinian American community center in Chicago, Chicago festival of Bosnian-Herzegovinian film, Bosnian-Herzegovinian islamic center of New York, etc. I think nobody is offended with a whole denomination.

Windhunter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

"Bosnian-Herzegovinian" is incorrect because the subject here is Bosnia and Herzegovina and not "Bosnia-Herzegovina". FkpCascais (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC) argument is invalid because they simply use the name of the country, just as we do here always use "Bosnia and Herzegovina" as birthplace, and never Bosnia. The issue is not that one. Also, could you please provide links to all those institutions you claim are called that way? FkpCascais (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
User:FkpCascais, Transfermarkt argument is not invalid, [3]they referred teams who won the title as Bosnian-Herzegovinian champions and Bosnian-Herzegovinian cup winners, and all players have in their achievmement lists [4] full denomination. And all this institutions [5], [6], [7],[8], [9] proved that your grammer argument is funny. Demonym "Bosnian-Herzegovian" is grammaticaly correct and I don't see a problem. My "edit war" mostly was with banned user HankMoodyTZ and his IP. Your Bosnian war argument is not very strong, we also have a Bosnian-Herzegovinian Infantry. Windhunter (talk)
Thank you for providing the links.
I went to Wiktionary to see and all I found is Bosnian. The article confirms that it refers to Bosnia and Herzegovina. FkpCascais (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
User:FkpCascais As I said before, I proved that demonym "Bosnian-Herzegovian" is grammaticaly correct, and that your opinion is incorrect about grammer. Yes "Bosnian" is often used because it is shorter but has other meanings such as regional, etc. Demonym "Bosnian-Herzegovinian" is more precie than "Bosnian". I think I don't break any rules. I reverted your edits because I thought you were banned user hankmoodyTz or his new account. So is there a problem with "Bosnian-Herzegovian" for players from Bosnia and Herzegovina if I continue editing?Windhunter (talk)

Indef request for Comefrombeyond[edit]

We are truly beset by cryptocurrency advocacy. We are always beset by organized online groups but the cryptofolks have taken this to a new level, and there is very clear financial COI driving this trend as well.

I now present:

This user has made all of 54 edits, only 15 of which are visible as the rest are to the now-deleted IOTA (Distributed Ledger Technology) page.

100% SPA, 100% promotional, does not care a whit about the content or behavioral policies and guidelines. They had edit warred last summer (EWN, were warned to stop, and just vanished instead.

They showed up on the 16th and made this diff adding a huge bolus of unsourced or primary-sources-sourced promotional content and removed COI and advert templates.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff 14:57, 18 April 2018, restoring it
  2. diff 16:55, 18 April 2018, restoring it
  3. diff 10:13, 21 April 2018, restoring it
  4. diff 08:49, 22 April 2018, reverting tagging
  5. again reverting to their version, what they called "vandalism" 21:36, 22 April 2018
  6. again 21:40, 22 April 2018
  7. diff 21:45, 22 April 2018


They have finally started using the talk page ( see this section) but their comments there are awful. It is clear that they want to make the WP page into an FAQ or "how to" page per this comment and this and this (the latter citing Iota's userguide). Their second-to-last one was this personal attack.

This person doesn't care about WP or the policies and guidelines. They are purely here as an advocate. I filed at EWN here but have withdrawn that, and am seeking an indef. This person is NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I note for the benefit of Comefrombeyond that the Bitcoin wiki may be a more appropriate outlet for this type of contribution. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
"100% promotional"? Sorry, but it's YOUR version which looks as 100% marketing, MINE contains a lot of technical information. Comefrombeyond (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
You do not understand Wikipedia nor care about it. Providing users with a how-to guideline like you are trying to do, is aimed at getting people to adopt Iota. WP does not exist to facilitate uptake of anything. And we don't just write what we know, or try to replicate userguides. You are treating WP like it is some shitty blog. You are ignoring what everyone else is telling you. You are not here to build an encyclopedia working in a community, which is what we are here to do. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This thread drew the attention of two other people, who have reverted Comefrombeyond, and Comefrombeyond has reverted them both -- diff, diff. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This is starting to look like a good case for an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we get a block for edit warring? I don't care how long, and we can talk about indef later. Right now he's vandalizing Wikipedia and I'd appreciate if that was stopped. --Tarage (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks for edit warring. I warned and they persisted. Discussion of an indefinite block can continue. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm still trying to get used to you dropping the blockhammer, Cullen--for so many years you did everything you did without that sometimes blunt tool. Don't get me wrong--I'm happy you joined the club, but still, it's odd. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, I have had the mop for nine months now, and am not yet fully comfortable with the job, Drmies. But the community gave me those tools for a reason and I am trying my best to use them wisely for the benefit of the encyclopedia. If I screw up, please let me know. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, you're looking good from what I can see, Cullen. Jimbo Wales should put you on payroll, and get you a designated parking spot for that hot rod you're doubtlessly getting. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Nice to see I am not the only one who drives it till it dies. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Or till it becomes un-Fit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's talk socking, because I have a strong suspicion that the TWO new accounts that popped up directly after Comefrombeyond was banned, and immediately went to work making edit requests on the article talk page... Lokesh1699 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and ZimtX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I don't know how much more blatant you can get. --Tarage (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh and while we're at it, User:Lokesh1699 requesting the adition of text DIRECTLY LIFTED from what Comefrombeyond was revert warring about... Look, this is either sock puppetry or meat puppetry and I don't care which. --Tarage (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Aaaaand while we're at it, I need to bring attention to this: Now correct me if I'm wrong but translating Wikipedia articles from one wiki to another requires attribution does it not? Might have a bigger issue on our hands. --Tarage (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, attribution is required. See WP:TFOLWP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I claim no expertise in detecting sockpuppets but those two instant accounts are "suspicious", I think that it is safe to say. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC) Can we get a lock on the talk page? This is nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Are cryptocurrencies under DS, and if not, should they be? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Another sock: --Tarage (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have tagged it as suggested (incidentally, it has also been moved to IOTA (technology)) Dorsetonian (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I've deleted IOTA (technology) as G8, since when I got to it it was a redirect to IOTA (cryptocurrency) which DGG has deleted and salted. If anyone feels G8 is a little too IAR here, feel free to revert. GoldenRing (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI, there is another copy of the article in draft space, which I have nominated for deletion. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

  • So I IARed and blanked the draft page (accidentally removing the MfD notice in the process, which has been restored. My apologies for that.)
I think we should keep the draft page, as a place for the Iota people to try to work constructively in. I left a note at the talk page and one person from that community has responded in the way we want. I would like to see if we can channel their energy - teach any of the Iota folks who are willing to learn what they should do - and perhaps we can resolve this without too much further drama.
I am hearing the problem with attribution from the copy/paste. Perhaps we can handle that via revdel... Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: They are not. Many cryptocurrency related articles are indefinitely semi-protected due to spamming, but it's still not enough. I agree community sanctions should be considered. MER-C 20:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Possibly related? GMGtalk 12:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Comefrombeyond GMGtalk 13:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • another day, another version of this shit dumped into WP, now at Talk:IOTA (cryptocurrency). Please delete and salt that page too.
Please indefinitely block User:Pyrekkk Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks User:Black Kite! Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Help with a new editor[edit]

I need some help with a new editor Felix Montana. I think he is a good faith editor, but unfortunately he has been non-responsive to multiple attempts to communicate and there are a couple of issues that require attention. I am concerned this may have BLP implications and that a copyrighted image appears to have been reuploaded after this note informating the editor of WP:UPIMAGE. This message on talk from MifterBot and others have been ignored.

I'm not sure what I can do if the editor is not willing to communicate. I am hoping that by posting here it will encourage him to communicate with us. I don't want to make anymore unilateral changes to the article because I am already at 3 reverts, but maybe he will be more responsive to another editor. I stubifyed this article and passed it at AfC because I thought the topic was notable, and I tried to improve it in the hopes that the editor would be willing to discuss changes on the talk page, but it has been unsuccessful. I don't think I have any choice but to involve others, and I very much hope sanctions can be avoided.SeraphWiki (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy tag won't transclude[edit]

I tagged TimedText:Maniac (Michael Sembello song - sample) (whatever this page is) for speedy deletion as an obvious copyvio of song lyrics, but the speedy tag won't transclude onto the page properly. Can someone please delete this page? Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it a copyvio though? The sample has been on Maniac (Michael Sembello song) for over a decade; making the thing useful to deaf readers shouldn't suddenly make it a copyvio. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not a copyright expert by any means, but this seems to fall under fair use per WP:LYRICS and WP:NFCCP; the fair-use tag that is on File:Maniac (Michael Sembello song - sample).ogg should apply. As for the technical issue: similar to .js pages, while adding the tag text as you did seems to do nothing, it still adds the page to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations, which is all that's needed. ansh666 07:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


Resolved: CheckUser blocked as a sock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Randomnickname567: said that "Saudis need to be bombed." He continued after being warned.

After that, he denied that WP is neutral and insulted me " Although if you seriously believe Wikipedia isn't POV you should check with a doctor."

Also, he didn't Assume good faith : "I also see now from your talk/contributions page that you feel very strongly for Saudi Arabia, which makes me suspect you are not really neutral on the topic either." and He's probably trying to swarm the page with templates so that it would appear bloated so that he can finally remove the template".

Also, he said " the news get tracking something their propaganda media don't show", so WP is not a media.

--Panam2014 (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

He's only been here a week, and at this rate, he won't be here much longer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
That first comment alone warranted a block in my opinion. This is someone clearly WP:NOTHERE. And it looks like this was a sock, per their block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Onel5969, mistakes in automated edits, and problematic attitude[edit]

Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Onel5969 has been using tools to make mass edits to disambiguate pages. Ok, all well and good, except that one day's worth of activity can result in dozens of serious mistakes.

Here's just the ones I've had to revert relating to just one link, over about an hour: [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], [35], [36], [37], [38].

Now, would you rather go to a general disambiguation page that includes the right option among others, or would you rather be sent directly to the wrong result? Because among the edits I linked to, he identifies a number of people who died well before Helena Blavatsky was even born as followers of Blavatsky's theosophy, including Jakob Böhme, the founder of the tradition Blavatsky got the word "Theosophy" from. I'll admit that my edit summary when he did that did nothing to hide my frustration at this incredibly stupid error. Before anyone says "content dispute," this is like having the etymology of York go to the New York City article. If a brand new account made nothing but edits like this, they would be blocked as a vandalism only account and claims by them to the contrary would be dismissed as trolling.

But I assumed good faith and all, and figured that asking him to be more careful would not be unreasonable. When this issue was raised with him, he referred to this constructive criticism as "non-constructive", acted like it was my fault for not cleaning up his mess before he made it, and sought to ban me from his talk page.

Later, when Shenme asked Onel5969 to be more careful because he had once again linked to the wrong article, Onel5969 replied by reverting with the summary "changing back to non-specific dab is even less helpful". That's right, the wrong link is somehow better than a general disambig page. Shenme tried once again, quite patiently and politely, to address the problem. Onel5969 once again replied by reverting with a summary banning Shenme and calling anything he said "unhelpful". Granted, he did restore the post to provide a more "thoughtful" reply, accusing Shenme of being WP:NOTHERE and arguing that a general disambig page is somehow far worse than linking to the wrong page.

I admit that I replied despite Onel5969 previously telling me not to post again, to warn him that his behavior has been completely inappropriate and that this thread would be started if he did not change his attitude. His response was that it was "uncivil POV commentary"... Uh, what? Now, if he had just reverted, sure, that's one thing, but where exactly was I uncivil and how does POV apply to this? I understand that users are allowed to ban others from their talk page, but how is this site going to function if a user responds to all legitimate criticism (no matter how constructive or polite) with illogical hostility and blame-shifting?

Unless anyone can get it across to Onel5969 that he needs to try to:

  • be way more careful when making mass automated changes
  • accept that general disambig pages are actually more useful than the wrong page
  • reply to editors who point out mistakes with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in mind

...The easiest solution would be restricting Onel5969 from using tools (such as but not limited to DisamAssist) to perform mass disambiguations. I would hope that manual disambiguation shouldn't be an issue. If someone can just get across two out of three of those bullet points, that'd be a drastic improvement.

But I'm fine with this resolving without restrictions, apologies, or whatever -- my concern is that we have an editor who causing serious messes and responding to those who clean up after those messes with illogical hostility, blame-shifting, and refusal to communicate. The less work it takes to resolve that, the better, but that's really in Onel5969's field. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. First, I admit I screwed up on the Theosophy dab, due to my conflating the two meanings. In fact, I was about to place a message on Ian's page, except when I read his totally uncivil edit summaries on some of the reverts. And I could have slowed down a bit, but when you're slogging through 1200 dabs, work created by a different editor, not sure that some 30 odd errors is that bad, actually (0.25%). Second, I do reply to editors who are civil and constructive. Ian's comments in edit summaries were, at times, uncivil, and I never respond to uncivil editors, instead attempting to avoid conflict. Third, POV, Ian came on to my talk page, after being asked not to (which is in itself an uncivil action), and lectured my on AGF. However, he never once looked at the other editor's post and asked them to assume AGF. I responded to the editor, pointing out that their comment was directly contrary to their actions. That if they truly believed in the comment they left, they would have targeted the dab to the correct article (clubfoot), instead of sending it back to the dab page. In fact, they did not simply revert my edit, but instead manually changed it back to the dab, instead of taking the time to make the accurate correction. Bottom line is that I have no time for incivility. And no time for lecturing. If you have a disagreement with an edit I make, be civil and lets discuss it. Otherwise I will continue to delete such posts from my talk page. I'm human, I make mistakes. Sometimes they are mis-clicks, such as was pointed out by Ynhockey here, while other times it's a case of my making a dab change, and then the dab being reverted, as was the case with MilborneOne's correction here (this is one area where current WP policies can create extra unneeded work for editors, as the thread on my talk page will show). And other times, it is a glitch that I was unaware about, as was the case when Certes pointed this out to me. Other times it's a simple disagreement, as I had with Smtchahal here, Regardless, will abide by the decision reached here. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 23:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Onel5969: can you address why you responded equally uncivilly to User:Shenme despite the constructive comment on your talk page? I can understand responding in kind to User:Ian.thomson after reading his edit summaries, but surely you don't have any bones to pick with Shenme after s/he suggested that you take care in what your tools are doing? I believe the comment was meant to address the fact that the change in question made the article worse, and it seems like your response is the equivalent Tu Quoque. AlexEng(TALK) 23:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Certainly AlexEng - I take any failure of AGF as an uncivil action. And that other editor certainly did not assume AGF, as is indicated in the tone of his post. If they had asked, "why did you do that?", "what was you're thinking here?" (as evidenced in other threads on my talk page), I would have engaged in a discussion. That's in response to his first edit. My edit summary when I removed their comment, "changing back to non-specific dab is even less helpful", is not fallacious, simply my viewpoint on their actions. Folks can disagree and still have civil discussions. I felt the article was better off not pointing to the dab page, they didn't. His second edit, imho, was clearly hypocritical, since they had a clear choice to improve the article (assuming AGF on their part, and that they knew it should point to clubfoot), and made the conscious decision NOT to improve the article, instead redirecting back to the dab page. While at the same time lecturing me on how edits should improve the article. In order for Tu Quoque argument to be valid, they would have had to actually pointed the target to the correct article. Then my argument would have been fallacious. Onel5969 TT me 00:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
William John Little has severe hamster feet?
Oh dear, I think I'm going to need some disambiguation of the above. I'm at a loss to understand Onel5969's distaste at editor interactions, given their length of service and prolificity here.
An edit was done, using a tool which did not understand the weirdness at talipes, where someone earlier had put elaboration on foot deformities. It is quite obvious that the tool simplemindedly took the first 'real' link at that location and substituted that for the dab. That was the point of my first talk page post, that the tool got it wrong, that it was the wrong result for the reader, and the tool betrayed Onel5969 when not reviewing the results.
That Onel5969 felt I was attacking them is concerning. I would have thought it obvious I was criticizing these simpleminded tools, as they are not automatic, and *require* reviewing each result at length, lest they betray all and sundry.
After the bewildering defense of a bad result (he has a foot), I then went and investigated further, finding the original attempt at elaborating on clubfoot by extending the dab entry at PES#Pes_(anatomy) back in 2016. And wondering whether the user name really seemed familiar, checked whether Onel5969 was perhaps 'new', to see how to respond to the apparent confusion. At 254000 edits in 4+ years, 500+ edits a day, not new at all.
So responding to the lack of discussion I reiterated the wrongness of the results, and suggested a course of action if Onel5969 really hated non-specific dabs that much - make it a specific dab. (In a sense, achieving what user Quercus solaris could have done better back in 2016 - a dab specifically for talipes)
I'm afraid I just don't know how to reply constructively to
Instead you deliberately chose not to improve the article. So don't post on my page again. Your actions make it clear that you are not here to help the encyclopedia.
Is that really saying "if my results are bad, your job is to fix them" ? And further, that discussion of edits is a bad thing? Please tell me what I've gotten wrong here, that has earned such dismay from Onel5969. Shenme (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Onel5969's dabfixes have been something of an issue for some time. Among those of their edits that have washed up on my watchlist, I have felt that an unusually high proportion have been incorrect: these haven't been cases of vague borderline links that different editors could have fixed differently, but "fixes" that have been obviously incorrect given the immediate context of the link: like repointing to an article about the wrong type of entity or about a place in the wrong part of the world. I Of course, there are dablinks that can be fixed almost without looking, like links to New York or English (his work in this area is appreciated), but in many cases a bit more diligence is required. I remember having tried a couple of times to suggest to him this need for occasionally greater care, but I'm not sure this has had much of an effect (though let me add that civility has never been an issue). – Uanfala (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban?[edit]

I don't usually like to be the first one to propose sanctions in venues such as this, however I feel there is an ongoing problem here, and Onel5969 doesn't appear to get the issues - and a quick review of the editing history seems to indicate there is a far issue of changing links without due regard for the new topic. I think a topic ban from (semi)automated edits to DABLINKS for 3 months may well be the best way forward here for the minute. Mdann52 (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I'll admit the civility issue is debatable (and it's not like there's anything we can do to adjust his attitude at any rate), but accuracy is a definite problem and also a source of issues where civility may be a problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you please clarify if you're including the use of tools such as WP:Twinkle, or just User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist? AlexEng(TALK) 00:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment2 What is the purpose of the 3 month ban? Do you anticipate that the user will change his/her behavior after this time period? AlexEng(TALK) 00:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mdann52: Some clarification is needed here. I've only seen problems with DisamAssist (but haven't gone looking for trouble). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson and AlexEng: I've modified the proposal accordingly - unfortunately it looks like my follow-up edit failed to save. 3 month ban is to prevent the immediate issue ongoing, and allow Onel5969 to have time to look into the issue more widely as needed. It also avoids the inherent issues with trying to get out of an indef ban. Mdann52 (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Lukewarm support The faith in tools as a means to quickly earn zillions of edits is misplaced. The belief that review of tool edits is not needed is mistaken. The idea that a (self-defined) acceptably low error rate over 100's edits per day is a "good thing" is frightening. My part in all this was pointing out a ridiculously bad result using tools and being rebuffed with... I'm still not sure. "The tools are perfect"? "My edits are perfect"? "My edits using tools are unassailably perfect"? My support is based on this - the editor needs to get back to editing. If they don't like editing, they shouldn't. Shenme (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Aside: in my discipline there is an ideal called egoless programming. In my work bug reports are treasures leading to improved results. Is there an essay here about egoless editing? It is sorely needed. Shenme (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support As someone to whom the assumption of good faith is important, I feel the user in question has badly misunderstood the intent; a polite criticism is not a breach of good faith, nor is it something to get up in arms about, even if it is an erroneous one, and if one knows one's tool can lead to errors, one must be open to corrections of those errors. Icarosaurvus (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. A topic-ban from automated edits might act as a deterrent from making hasty dabfixes, but I don't know if it will address the underlying problem. Even without the help of automated tool, one can still disambiguate links in a rapid and careless manner. And conversely, I don't think anyone of us will have issues with Onel5969 using any tool they wish to fix easy links like New York. I'm thinking that the proper solution would be to adopt some form of supervision and coaching from an experienced member of the DPL project. But this would depend on Onel5969's willingness and cooperation. – Uanfala (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Resolution - didn't realize this was still going on. To save everyone time and effort, I'll simply stop fixing dabs. That should solve the issue. Was simply trying to help. Take care everyone. Onel5969 TT me 14:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Rollback request[edit]

Please could someone with rollback review recent edits by User:Cote d'Azur per User talk:Cote d'Azur#caps, and preceding 'Timeline of...' edits per MOS:BOLDTITLE. Thanks. (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

IP, these particular cases look somewhat ambiguous, and hence this isn't a suitable venue for rollback. You may, of course, undo their contributions, although Cote d'Azur is an experienced editor. Looking at the most recent no reason was provided reverting you, which isn't courteous, but is hardly an AN/I issue. Looking at [39] the first bit is wrong, since there is a the, however the rest of the edit is correct. MOS:JOBTITLES is fairly subtle, so it's not hard to misinterpret (indeed, I might be myself!). Bellezzasolo Discuss 21:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Not useful. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Next up: Born2cycle will demand that the user is renamed to user:Ivory Coast. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
User:République de Côte d'Ivoire would be more accurate. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Even more accurately, should be renamed to User:French Riviera. See: Cote D'Azur. Face-smile.svg AlexEng(TALK) 22:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion by Jakob9999 – need a rangeblock[edit]

(non-admin closure)Rangeblocked.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 18:03, 27 April 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.

Jakob9999 was blocked October 2017. Since late September 2017, he has been using IPs from Arkansas, in the range Special:Contributions/2600:8804:8440:30B:0:0:0:0/64. Can we get a rangeblock?

As proof of the connection, here is Jakob9999 citing a discussion thread at where a user named Jakob9999 has posted a reply. Here is an Arkansas IP citing another discussion at where Jakob9999 has started a new thread. Same thing here. I think we have to assume block evasion. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks pretty obvious to me. Range blocked one month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
But wait, NinjaRobotPirate, there's one more. See this edit at a page which has very recently been of interest to four different rangeblocked IPs. Binksternet (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't tell if that's a statically or dynamically allocated IP address, so I blocked it 31 hours. It looks static, but I'd rather be more sure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:11, 25 April 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.

Repeated vandalism by User:TheFirstRedBaron80[edit]

Closing as indeffed by Ferret
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, TheFirstRedBaron80 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly inserted vandalism into these two pages [40] [41]. I have warned them twice on their talk page, and subsequent to the last warning, they have reverted one of the two edits to restore the vandalism. --Theredproject (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like they are branching out to other pages too [42] --Theredproject (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Indef'd -- ferret (talk) 19:59, 26 April 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 as indeffed by Dlohcierekim. –Davey2010Talk 20:50, 27 April 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.

JCGDIMAIWAT has already been to ANI a few weeks ago. They were blocked for one week, and made no promises to change. They have edited the same since they returned: refusing to answer messages although I have directed them to WP:V, WP:BURDEN and WP:Communication is required as well as pointing out that communication is a matter of policy per WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE but the editor just ignores all the messages. They have not addressed the original concern either (unsourced article creations) and have added small pieces of unverified information to articles since their block. I have sent them eight messages, all ignored. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Given the utter lack of response to attempts to engage the user, and persistence of unsourced editing despite previous block, I've blocked them indefinitely. Once the concerns are addressed, I'd be happy to unblock. Any admin can reverse or modify or unblock at their discretion.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:01, 27 April 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.

Disruptive reverts and Page Ownership on Jahannam article[edit]

I want to protest about the attitude of User:VenusFeuerFalle who dominantly reverted my edits (and the others' edit) on Jahannam article with some hard reasons to accept because several of the reversions did not follow the rules of Wikipedia. Based on my observation on her edits on Jahannam Revision History, I may blame her for doing "Page Owning" since the majority of edits are checked and reverted by herself. I also have several objections to her nonconstructive demeanor in content article improvement:

  • First, she wanted that my sources in Jahannam should be from well-known Muslim scholars, then I provided the sources from Harun Yahya, and other scholars. Yet she insisted on removing my contributions.
  • Second, she however said that I had only to provide primary sources from Quran instead of published secondary sources (or third-party sources) that are more reliable as encyclopedic content which is included in the Wikipedia principle.
    "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."
    Eventually, I reminded her that I would bring this dispute to Wikipedia:ANI if she keep reverting my edits. But she continued to do that. Moreover, She mocked a verse of Muslim Holy Book as "a useless reference" and deny the importance of secondary source for lead content of the Jahannam article.
  • Third, She insist on refuse any importance for the Islam Quranic references in the lead of Jahannam article, although the Jahannam itself is the concept of Hell in Islam, and Quran is the most honored source in the religion.

Therefore, I expect the help from the Administrators to mediate me and that user whose dispute has not came into consensus or even give warning to her since she insisted on the rejection and reverts without considering that my reverted edits did not violate any Wikipedia rule.

I also expect that there is a blocking rule concerning disruptive edit from user (who repeatedly try to revert the useful contributions) that result in temporary edit-blocking because the unnecessary reverts are strongly discouraging the newbies or good-faith editors to make further contributions to Wikipedia, which means the quality of article content is not going better due to harsh reactions from other users. — MusenInvincible (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

I recently made an edit on Insurgency in Balochistan which was reverted because of an alleged "copyright violation" (without demonstrating how its a copyright violation). A few editors were involved in edit warring there which resulted in the article being protected. When I looked at their contributions I found this happened across other pages as well recently. These editors seem to gang up and censor anything they dont like by reverting contributions made by others. There definitely is a pattern that seems fishy.

On Insurgency in Balochistan

Capitals00, MBlaze Lightning, Raymond3023

Previous reverts at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 between 7 April 2018‎ to 18 April 2018‎

MBlaze Lightning, Raymond3023, Capitals00, Raymond3023

Also inserting the same point of view at Siachen conflict between 21 April 2018‎ to 22 April 2018

MBlaze Lightning, Capitals00

Regards, --Uncle Sargam (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

::Your evidence on that SPI is ripped open by me, it’s guts splattered all over the place and dead body stinking and being decomposed. It is just waiting for the clerk to take it to the graveyard and bury it (close and archive). Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

And after blocking the filer indefinitely. You forgot to mention that. @Bbb23: can you check this above comment by SherrifsIsInTown? I deem it to be clear cut example of WP:BATTLEGROUND and that he is importing same offense here for which he was warned in SPI several times. Capitals00 (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
What are you asking Bbb23 to check here? I did not say anything about you, this is all about the evidence. Why do you complain so much? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
MBlazeLightning listed (one of) the sources it was copied from. I've rev/deleted the edits. Doug Weller talk 12:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I endorse the pattern mentioned by Uncle Sargam, I noticed such pattern as well but in a different area which I mentioned here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • And the "pattern" was removed by Bbb23 as a personal attack.[43] Since you are repeating same false allegations here, by endorsing a paid editing sock, you are doing nothing but turning this thread into a request where we must seek sanction for your disruption. MBlaze Lightning talk 02:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
This was just to mention what he noticed, I noticed as well. What is your proof of that user being a "paid editing sock"? You cannot call him that until you prove so and for that your evidence is not going to hold the ground so stop calling him that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
This is just another of MBL's (and Capitals00s) frustration with users they do not agree with. MBL has been busy filing SPIs, including the one against me a few months ago. He has been trailing me on and off, most recently removing a reliably sourced edit on "Hinduism", but this time aided by his team tag member Capitals00. And as usual they are both desperate to try and frame (mostly by SPIs and baseless AN reports) anyone with an opposing sentiment blocked. I would recommend a restriction against their repeated filings. Perhaps a topic restriction on filing reports to once a week. I would prefer to let the Arbcom decide that. But something should be done. Otherwise anyone who falls in their path will have to face this kind of repeated tormenting.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
You probably favor copyright violations given you were recently indefinitely banned from uploading images[44] for your copyright violations and there are no chances if that sanction will ever be removed, but don't expect us to tolerate copyright violation. This complaint was not filed by me or Mblaze, it was filed by an obvious sock belonging to a disruptive sock farm. Talking about your "edit" on Hinduism, it was a POV edit and you have engaged in same POV pushing on Talk:Hindu earlier where your all edits were rejected. You had to use a nonsensical edit summary to back up your edit[45], that alone leaves no doubt. Given your continued WP:CIR issues and you are already under restriction from uploading images, it would be better to have you site banned once again. Capitals00 (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
What is your special interest in my topic ban from uploading images? Most images I added were accepted not to mention the countless free use files from commons and my removal of copyright content on various occasions. The very same administrator blocked you as well and on the same topic area that you are currently team tag edit warring on. That's exactly what I meant. Labelling anyone with an opposing POV a sockpuppet or always proposing site bans instead of pointing out where they're wrong appears more CIR. I can only wish someone neutral with better judgement decide on how to handle this. One thing is also apparent that not only does your team tag refuse any edits on India or "Hindu" word-related topics, but who also team tag on topics on Pakistan and continue to attack anyone who resists your questionable edits.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
It shows that you lack understanding of copyrights and it is very concerning that when you have been blocked many times, site banned, topic banned for copyrights before and obviously you should be more aware about them than any of us, but clearly you are not and you are supporting an obvious sock who is lamenting that he didn't got to violate copyrights, and your reason is nothing behind it except that you didn't got to push your POV in the articles that have been long edited by me and MBlaze. There was consensus among admins to impose topic ban on you from uploading images, there was not one single admin who imposed it. I am not proposing site ban but only suggesting you a solution of the problems that you are raising, where no one but only you are the offender. You can prove otherwise how there are no CIR issues with you which is contradicted by your block log and also prove that this editor is not a sock on SPI, despite it is a WP:DUCK. In fact you still haven't admitted that you had a misunderstanding that this complaint was filed by me or MBlaze. Use talk page for continuing your petty content dispute, not this board and prove how "questionable" those reverts are over there after noting your history on Talk:Hindu and those discussions didn't even involved me. Capitals00 (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this how you respond to complaints and remove reliably sourced edits without explanations and instead calling it "POV" when I clearly provided the ref? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NadirAli (talkcontribs) 05:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What about your way of responding to a sensible revert, after changing longstanding content without an edit summary[46]? But you sure use edit summary when you believe you can organize a WP:BATTLE[47]? D4iNa4 (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Radovan Savić – long-term vandalism[edit]

Someone from Serbia has been adding the name Radovan Savić or Radovan Savic to articles for two years or so. The main article affected is BSC Young Boys (see e.g. Special:Diff/718505076, Special:Diff/796385947, Special:Diff/838236245 and many more), but there were others, too. Would it be an option to create an edit filter that avoids the continuation of this kind of vandalism? I would prefer to not to apply a long-term protection. --Leyo 22:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

what about my image[edit]

Image nuked. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 28 April 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 admins , can you look through /File:Canberra_MRT_station_vicinity_map_-_Streetdirectory.PNG. marked for deletion by not. agree with bot bit there are some other licensing with regard to the map. either delete or keep as I would need some closure . sorry for the trouble and if inappropriate forum I apologise Quek157 (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

to add I intent to use on Canberra Mrt station to illustrate nearby notable development where the external map may not be the best Quek157 (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The ad hoc license used by Street Directory is not compatible with Wikipedia's license (specifically the requirement that the creator's blurb be listed below each instance of the image, and the prohibition against selling). Unless a valid fair use rationale is added to the image, it will and should be deleted. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I can. so could you delete it thanks--Quek157 (talk) 10:10, 28 April 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: - Constantly vandalising page to say BC/AD instead of accepted BCE/CE[edit]

Seems to have stopped on their own
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.

As can be seen from the revision history at (which I've reversed four times now), whoever's posting from IP needs to be either warned by an admin or banned. It's not like they're contributing anything. Stephen Walch (talk)

The user deserves a warning maybe for not giving a rationale for their changes against consensus, but they're not at the point where a block is reasonable. You didn't notify them on their user talk page of this discussion, which you are required to do. Elassint Hi 22:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, had missed that requirement. Has now be done. Thank you. Stephen Walch (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
As they seem to have stopped of their own occur, I suppose I could close this. Feel free to revert if I've been presumptuous.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:40, 29 April 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.

Undisclosed paid editing[edit]

Some days we get to appreciate how Robert Mueller feels, dealing with some of the most comically inept criminals on the planet. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 27 April 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.

Per this Twitter post by Marco Arment which contains an e-mail pitching "Wikipedia Consultant" services from a person named "Craig S," last name redacted, at least the following articles were substantially contributed to by a paid editor: NTENT, Digital Science, Urban Produce, LLC, Carlisle Homes. None of the pages appear to have paid editing disclosures. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, checking the Twitter comments, I see that shortly after (and perhaps because of) your post here, an arbitrator asked mr Arment to forward the e-mail with full headers to, and he complied, so I guess the affair is more or less under control. Thank you for reporting, and for adding COI tags to the articles. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC).
P.S. I've now PRODded Carlisle Homes and Urban Produce, LLC, not that I expect it to stick, if the creator is watching. But there's always AfD as the next step. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC).
Urban Produce opened their doors in Irvine, California where they currently grow USDA certified organic microgreens, wheatgrass and a variety of specialty leafy greens and herbs in their CEA (Controlled Environmental Agriculture) vertical farm using their patented High Density Vertical Growing System (HDVGS).
Eww. No. God no. Burn it with fire G11. Obvious advertisement is obvious. GMGtalk 21:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Endorse G11's, won't delete 'cause someone should come to them fresh, à nouveau .--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:46, 27 April 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.

Help fixing a mistake I made[edit]

Article moved back by Dlohcierekim. NAC –Davey2010Talk 14:03, 29 April 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 moved Pontiac to Pontiac (automobile brand) because I didn't remember that I had proposed that move once before a couple of years ago and it didn't get consensus. Now I need to move it back but I can't. So if an admin would please help me move the automobile back to its original title I would appreciate that. Thanks.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)  Done--Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you forgot the talkpage, though. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
LOL No the stupid move button forgot the talk page.  Done again.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:14, 29 April 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.

Disruptive editing at Shooting of Michael Brown[edit]

(non-admin closure)Admin Courcelles applied two months semi and blocked 72 hours. Not the best action in my opinion, as it favors the offender at the expense of good unregistered editors, but it closes this complaint. ―Mandruss  18:26, 28 April 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.

2600:100a:b025:f2c7:c0fd:75a1:6465:4e9d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Shooting of Michael Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Multiple re-reverts including after multiple user talk warnings. User refuses to respect long-standing consensus as to inclusion of the race of the officer, while falsely claiming that most sources support the word "thug" with reference to Brown. I'm requesting a block and, as they have not shown any desire to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, I would prefer an indefinite one. ―Mandruss  18:14, 28 April 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.
  • You're right, Mandruss, I fat-fingered the protection length, but I did mean to protect it for the duration of the block given how trivial IPv6 blocks are to evade. Courcelles (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

FrankCesco26, umpteenth wave of disruptive POV edits[edit]

CONTENT DISPUTE start with the talk page and then have a look at WP:DR if you still can't resolve your differences. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:19, 28 April 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.

User:FrankCesco26 has a history of blocks for repeated edit-warring and POV-pushing in articles related to religion. In the last hours he is nearing violation of 3RR in Religion in the Czech Republic and has made extensive, unwarranted removals in Religion in Russia based merely on the fact that he doesn't like that the best sources available say something different than what he personally thinks or reads around the Internet. Recently, he also engaged in an umpteenth case of WP:PA against me, calling me a "problematic user", while consensus in that discussion went in the opposite direction of what he wanted.

I ask a decisive solution against this user.--Wddan (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

1. You have a block log too. 2. Neither of you went to the talk page, you just yelled at each other in edit summaries. 3. This is a content dispute and will be closed with no action. Go talk about it on the talk page and get consensus. --Tarage (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I have a block log because I unfortunately found myself engaged in editing the same articles that FrankCesco26 usually edits. There already is a history of discussions and consensus about these topics in the respective talk pages.
This is not a content dispute, but a complain about the behaviour of user FrankCesco26.--Wddan (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
You are both not using the talk page. Let me be more clear. USE THE TALK PAGE. --Tarage (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I repeat that there is an extensive history of discussions about these topics and a general consensus about what and how data should be shown. FrankCesco26 is not the type of user who respects consensus. He has a LONG history of disruptive edit warring in this type of articles. I suggest to see this first case and this second one.--Wddan (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Users who in the past crossed their ways with FrankCesco26 could have something to say about the behaviour of the user: Boing! said Zebedee, Iryna Harpy.--Wddan (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC) Last talk page edit was in 2016. Last talk page edit was in January. Neither have talk page comments from EITHER OF YOU for THIS ISSUE. Use. The. Talk. Page. --Tarage (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I am waiting the intervention of administrators. However, Tarage, this edit by FrankCesco26 (the edit of today) is glaring vandalism. He removed two sets of data (Ministry of Education and European Social Survey), and in the past he tried to wipe out Arena Atlas, which has been chosen as the best set of data by both reason and consensus. All the relevant discussions can be found here. There's nothing new. The only solution against vandalism is to revert it.--Wddan (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, you're waiting for the intervention of an administrator. USE THE TALK PAGE!!!! This is what it's there for. You are complaining about someone and doing the exact same thing, though in fact it's you who is violating WP:BRD. You edited, they reverted (very partially, not even the entire thing) with a reasonable sounding explanation, so you decided to start an edit war. Go use the talk pages.Canterbury Tail talk 22:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Not impressed by someone calling edits they disagree with vandalism. Tarage has a point. These are tedious and disruptive and just plain annoying. My options are blocking both or closing this or playing with my dog. I'll let you know.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh and by go to the talk pages, we didn't mean go to the talk pages and accuse other editors of vandalism and edit warring (when you're the one edit warring.) Seriously if you can't learn to play well with others and assume good faith maybe it's just better if we block you now. I suggest you refactor those talk page comments to remove the accusations and be more civil to other editors. From where I'm standing it's looking like you're the editor with the issue here. Canterbury Tail talk 23:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion the removal of well-sourced content is a type of vandalism. I am an editor with a history of good contributions and frankly I am amazed at how I am being treated here and how the issue is being handled. I did not assume the good faith of user FrankCesco26 because I already had to do with him in the past, and what he tried to do in Talk:Religion in Italy, that is, manipulation of sources (see this case, in which I was not involved) was enough for me to lose any trust in the user. What I tried to do opening this case was actually to prevent any other exhausting edit war from happening.--Wddan (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
No, no, no. The removal of well-sourced content is only vandalism if it is done maliciously. If it is done as bold editing in a content dispute, it is usually undesirable but needs to be discussed, on talk pages, of all places. Yelling "Vandalism" to "win" a content dispute doesn't make it vandalism and doesn't win the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
You know what prevents edit warring? Not edit warring and using the talk page. USE THE TALK PAGE. --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes I feel like we are talking to a wall. Yoshi24517Chat Very Busy 05:33, 28 April 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.

Vandalism and "todd howard"[edit]

We can weather this storm. Archiving this per WP:DENY. Swarm 20:22, 29 April 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 right place to say this but—has anyone else noticed a spike in vandalism involving "todd howard" or something sounding similar? Accounts use that name (1 2), vandalism uses this (1 2 3 these are just a few examples). Why is this happening? The IP edits look like they're coming from different places, so it doesn't seem like just one person is doing it. The Todd Howard that the vandalism is about is probably Todd Howard (video game designer). Anyone know what can be done? SemiHypercube (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: An influx of idiots. We are blocking the trolls and protecting articles. --NeilN talk to me 23:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: Ah. A vandalism raid against Wikipedia. SemiHypercube (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@SemiHypercube:,@NeilN:. Just to give some more context: This was discussed quite a bit at WP:RPP, you can see it here. This vandalism is based off a popular Tumblr post which leaked over to Twitter that specifically mentioned today being the day protection of his page expired. Many editors sought to protect the page before this all happened, but per Wikipedia bureaucracy it was declined. Sorry to vent here, but I think this is a textbook example of how WP:PP needs to re-evaluate its policy against "pre-emptive protection" when there is a demonstrated, organized interest in vandalism. I am cleaning up Todd Howard from totally unrelated pages. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The target page was protected, what, 24 hours ago? This is a good example of why we don't preemptively protect: it means nothing. The actual page was quickly protected and then the overflow went elsewhere. It's not like sysops were about to protect every page with "todd" or "howard" in the name. ~ Amory (utc) 01:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
That's because an editor chose to be proactive, even then it required increased protection and editors time to fight that vandalism that could be spent combating other vandalism that is slipping through. I'm not saying everything should be preemptively protected, but pages that we can see a demonstrated outside campaign to vandalize. Again sorry, I am venting a little how much time is wasted fighting vandalism that can be easily prevented. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
scratches his head Not sure what you are expecting though. The main page was kept semi-protected when it was clear it would be vandalized, as it was already occurring on the talk page. Which, and how many, and at what volume, other pages might be targeted from that point on is not something we could easily guess before hand. I'd like to believe blocks and semi-protections have been quite responsive through this. -- ferret (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Should we make a temporary edit filter that tags and maybe warns editors if they try to add "Todd Coward" to any article? Some of the places that they're being added are VERY random and unexpected. I recently just reverted vandalism related to this in Weasel (disambiguation) and Chris Coward. This might be more effective than locking a bunch of pages. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 03:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Weasel related article vandalism is targeting me. :) I don't know edit filters myself, but I'd suggest a temporary filter for "Todd Coward" and "Todd Howard" (In general) for a while. Perhaps "Godd Howard" as well, though I haven't seen that one much. -- ferret (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't being clear above, ferret. I didn't mean guessing the outside/random pages that would be subject to the vandalism; I meant the pages that are expressly being targeted by the online campaigns, i.e. Todd Howard (video game designer). This has happened before and the response is always something like "wait until the vandalism actually happens." Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, pl