Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive994

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

Noticeboard archives



Previous ANI discussion can be viewed here. For simplicity's sake, I shall refer to this user as BG02. I am very bothered by this user's uncollaborative behavior, frequent dismissal of rules, and generally rude behavior towards other users, even going as far as threatening another user to kill themselves. BG02 has previously acknowledged his behavioral problems in his last chance unblock request, yet over the years, he has continued the same type of behavior. Even his signature (talkpage if you dare) indicates that he is an inapproachable user. Please also note that BG02 has been sufficiently warned about his abusive behavior recently. Please view the following diffs:


Note: There's plenty more instances of abusive behavior, but I do believe listing 10 diffs (mostly) from this year alone is enough is state my case.

Given that the user has already been given a final chance, and is showing no signs of improvement at all, he should be indef blocked per the agreement in his last chance unblock request. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I feel about the same as Sk8erPrince as seen above. —JJBers 16:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Looking at these diffs, I also concur. Holy smokes.--Jorm (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • My first thought is: none of this is very recent. The user's last block and the "last chance" unblock discussion are from 2013. Only one of this list of diffs occurred in the last month, and that was itself pretty mild. The user does seem to have ongoing conduct issues especially within the past year, however. I'm just not sure there's anything for admins to do with this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
You are right, BG02's last chance unblock discussion was in 2013. Yet, he broke the promise he made; I am pretty sure he understands that continued outbursts will result in being reblocked. Over the course of 5 years, BG02 has continued to belittle other users and ignore Wikipedia policy, noted in this diff. Additionally, Farix has warned BG02 one final time this year, which is gracious enough on Farix's part, since he could have just went ahead and reported BG02. From my perspective, it seems that BG02 has ignored the warning, and continued his spree of abusive behavior. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I would like to kindly remind you that BG02 is the subject here, and not me. Yes, you are right. I recently got off an indef block, but unlike BG02, I value second chances granted by administrators. Regardless of my personal history, it doesn't make my report any less valid. Problematic users are still problematic users, either way. Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't work that way Skater. Opening an ANI thread means your behavior is just as much in focus as theirs. I'm likewise not amused that you're diving head first into the drama boards two weeks after coming off of an indef. In the future I'd rather you go to an admin you trust and then them file it. --Tarage (talk)
I thought a user that is unblocked is to be treated just like any other contributor, unless they violate the terms of their unblock again. By your logic, Tarage, a user that was blocked before should not be reporting other users? I can't see why relaying my report to an admin is a better option, considering that I could compile my own report and post it myself. And to clarify, I have no prior interaction with BG02, but I find his abusive behavior very disturbing. Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Ahem. I would like to say, as an admin, that I try with greater or lesser succes to not sound pushy, aggressive, or imperative. Try to be polite until the time for politeness has passed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid that we don't care much about 2013. So long ago, who remembers. At the risk of sounding imperious, Tarage is right in saying that when one brings a complaint here, their edits and behavior are very much of interest of the denizens of this place. They have been know to hurl boomerangs. Has anyone tried to reason with the editor in question?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I see no evidence, Sk8erPrince, of you attempting to engage the user in discussion. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
You are right. I have not attempted to engage with BG02, because I do not wish to be at the receiving end of his personal attacks. BG02 has displayed a pattern of abusively replying to other users and sending death threats to any contributor that he thinks is in his way, or proves to be an inconvenience to him (at least, in his perspective). I do not believe BG02 can be reasoned with because he has been warned one final time in June 2018, and since then, has made no improvements in editing civilly in a collaborative environment, which is what Wikipedia is. So to answer your question, other users have tried to reason with BG02, but to no avail.
Additionally, although the last chance unblock request dates back to 2013, the conditions of that unblock are still in effect. The diffs listed above shows that BG02 is in violation of those terms; 9 out of 10 of them are from this year. Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
You don't get to per-emptivly judge someone guilty of attacking you BEFORE they attack you. You always engage. --Tarage (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
His recent past interactions all point to a strong unwillingness to communicate civilly. I do not wish to subject myself to the possibility of being cussed out. It's like deliberately walking into a lion's den just to get bitten. Sure enough, that's just a possibility, but I have listed what he has done, and there's no denying nor excusing the excessive amount of abuse in the diffs. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Please, if you're absolutely dead set on ignoring everything else I'm telling you, next time you find yourself in a need to report an editor, run it by an admin you trust first? I really don't want things to go south for you so quickly after you were unblocked. --Tarage (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Putting aside the fact that Sk8rPrince was only recently unblocked, that list of diffs is problematic, considering they go back quite a number of months this year. I'm not sure I agree with Ivanvector that there isn't much that admins can do with this. At a minimum, BG02 should get a reminder of the 2013 unblock agreement. A less merciful admin could certainly block them for violating those terms. Blackmane (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    I would go with a reminder and asking them what is going on first. Engagement, discussion and then maybe a block. Five years? I think blocking someone on an issue that has lain dormant for 5 years would be a bit trigger happy even for me. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    I have gone with the reminder and inquiry. Blackgaia02 has not edited since 6 hours before this thread was started. The last time personal attacks were raised as an issue on his talk was in June. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    Blackmane, I don't disagree with what you said, and I should have said "I don't see anything for admins to push buttons over". Reminding the user they have been told to keep it civil as a condition to remaining unblocked seems a perfectly reasonable admin response. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks, Ivanvector. I'm not good at this interpersonal stuff. On reflection, I see I may not be the only one. Probably the nature of the interface or something. FWIW, Blackgaia02 replied on my talk page. He's at a loss. Perhaps those of you who are good at interpersonal dynamics can help.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Ivanvector:Apologies if I came across as being overly critical. That was not my intention. The thrust of my point was that the discussion had descended into more about the complainant than about the user being reported. Even though a glance at the diffs did show some problematic behaviour from BG02. I may stop by Dlohcierekim's TP to make a comment. Blackmane (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I also agree with the basics of what Sk8erPrince has laid out above. Back in April I had a debate with this editor over the addition of unsourced content (which they repeatedly refused to source) and ended up warning them that I would have to report them here if they kept acting contrary to their unblock agreement. If the warning in June is any indication, apparently they chose to ignore that. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 20:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
This is the diff that shows BG02's unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia policy. And this is the message GS has posted on BG02's talkpage. It is apparent that BG02 has been sufficiently warned about the possibility of a reblock. Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps in light of the many comments above, you could stop posting in this thread? You made your report. Your participation here is controversial. We can handle it from here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I hate the recent rules here, the whole "you need to put a source or else its nuked or removed" especially in anime articles. The fact people are always being so high and mighty by reverting said things such as genres added and such like removing HUGE chunk of characters in a page. Just because adding a picture not related to the article, genre not related to the article, character sections that regarded as cancerous by people like TheFarix and removing facts due to NOT SOURCED offends me, insults me, depresses me to the verge of losing hope to this site. So what, I should delete all the articles I made because all of them are violations of Wikipedia's "Anti Fandom Law"? Look, I am not happy and not in a good mood on actually stating opinions because I felt someone pointing a gun over my head if I add an "unreliable source". I don't have my freedom anymore over which is content and which is not :<.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    So, if I'm hearing you correctly, you don't believe that sourcing "rules" should apply to you, or the areas you're interested in?--Jorm (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The "recent rules" you "hate" are merely a sign of the maturing of Wikipedia. For better or worse, we are now the English-speaking world's first stop for quick information on the Internet, so we now have a much heavier obligation to make certain that the facts we present are accurate. That means that more and more information is going to be required to be sourced, and if it's not sourced, it's going to be deleted. You can look back fondly on the good old days where one could play a bit fast and loose and slip in a bit of {factual) OR without sourcing it, but those days are unlikely to return: in fact, it's much more probable that sourcing requirements will get tighter as time goes on. I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now, no new information will be allowed to be added to an article unless it is accompanied by a citation from a reliable source.
    We are never going to be a site that welcomes "fans" with open arms - Wikia exists for that. Perhaps you would be more comfortable there? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
That site never ever want to accept me either. Even if I did one edit as what I did on their "Gundam Wiki". Wikia is also starting to go on the route of wikipedia, I don't belong there too.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: That was down right eloquent. I too sigh for the good old days when someone's edits were their own damn business. (Dear, unsourced except for my own head edits, I bid thee a fond adieu.} Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Dlohcierekim: I just removed a few characters from your last post because they altered the font on the rest of the page. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Welp. I guess the upshot of all this is Blackgaia02 must 1) cease and desist from making edits w/o a reliable source, and 2) must cease and desist from venting in an uncivil manner. I don't believe we need sanctions at this point beyond a final warning that even one repeat from here on out may result in an immediate and indefinite block. Can we wrap this up this way? Sk8erPrince-- I echo Floquenbeam's sentiment from above. We understand your position.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


User talk:1205dz has recently been reverting good faith edits on Roman Catholic Diocese of Novaliches. They claim that only people associated with the diocese are permitted to edit the page and only the diocese can approve. I noticed they left a message saying this on at least one user's talk page. [1] I left them a message on their talk page asking them to allow other users to edit the page, and they responded by leaving a message on my talk page by accusing me of insulting them as an editor by arguing with them and that no one on Wikipedia knows more about the subject than they do. [2] I think WP:COI may be involved here, in addition to the WP:OWN.Runawayangel (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I left some messages on their talk page that were almost immediately removed. We shall see.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks like I've been annoying again-- "(I dont want annoying messages)" (sigh)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
They're reverting edits again (and threating to report to the Bishop of Novaliches??) [3]Runawayangel (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Just be glad it's not Cardinal Sin. EEng 08:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
No, that's me. I was being annoying. I posted a welcome template to his Talk page and then posted comments that he might want to join two Wikipedia projects on Catholicism and the Philippines. He found those annoying and blanked them both. I didn't mention the article. He had already previously blanked your comments before I posted. I am the user that deleted the list of vicars from the diocese website (with edit comment WP:NOTADIRECTORY) that sparked his original comment on my Talk page demanding that I stop editing the page without permission. He was also reverted changes, again. He is at war it seems.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Warned them again. Invited them here-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Dlohcierekim: -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

1. It is true that anyone can edit in Wikipedia. No one owns any page here.

2. Why don't you trust people who hold the records for the churches or dioceses? 3. Information are based on the Catholic Directory of the Philippines. 4. Why focus much on the DIOCESE OF NOVALICHES where there are more than 70 dioceses, which Wikipedia entry is not monitored fairly as with this one? 5. I can help editors, but I don't want other editors telling me what information I have to put it. 6. We can dialogue, not rant or argue. 7. Please acknowledge my work. 8. Check other Wikipedia entries of other dioceses. 9. Even if anyone is free to edit here, do you not consider it a personal insult by not allowing the people, especially the priests, to give proper information? 10. This is not taking sides or parties. This is for the TRUTH!1205dz (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

1205dz has apologized on his Talk page: "I would like to apologize for my inappropriate demeanor. May we all work for the better of Wikipedia. 1205dz (talk) 2:24 pm, Today (UTC+8)" --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

A user name Hr croguy[edit]

Indeffed by Floq, In future please report at WP:AIV. –Davey2010Talk 16:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A user name Hr croguy had vandalized Olympus Has Fallen and stated an incorrect reason for it as seen on this diff. I reverted it and gave him a warning. This is what he said on the user's talk page. I don't think this guy is here to contribute this site and he's clearly not right in his head because I know the movie well enough to know that he is very incorrect on what he said to me on his talk page. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

For the future, this kind of bog standard vandalism is better reported at WP:AIV, but since it's here already I've blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:24, 9 October 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.

Edit warring at Saudi Arabia[edit]

Both users involved have been blocked for 60 hours for edit warring and for civility violations. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:13, 9 October 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, i would appreciate if an admin could put an end to the ongoing edit war between OxfordLaw and SharabSalam at Saudi Arabia. Please take a look at the revision history of the article. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

  • For future reference, edit warring actually has its own separate noticeboard. Kurtis (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I filed a WP:RFPP request for protection as well; there are quite a few people involved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Was not aware there was an edit war....all I was concerned with was unsourced statements of human rights crimes added with imagery....still not sourced in the article as of now. No point in joining talk page chat OxfordLaw is not going to think anything other then there preferd media outlets will do. it's funny those screaming bias all the time always appeared to be the most biased. Need more Centrist Canadiens all over the --Moxy (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd be inclined to dole out some blocks here on all sides. Moxy, that was a personal attack you need to retract. I am also unimpressed by SharabSalam saying "you to act like a whiney bitch in Wikipedia". Either way, new fresh eyes will hopefully solve this. What a mess though. --Tarage (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I've blocked both OxfordLaw and SharabSalam for 60 hours for repeated edit warring on the article, as well as for civility violations on the article's talk page (repeatedly calling other editors "anti-Arab", "anti-KSA", "a whiny little bitch", and other names). I was originally going to just leave SharabSalam this warning on his/her user talk page and remind them about the exemptions to 3RR and the proper way to resolve the matter (dispute resolution protocol), but then I saw this edit on the article's talk page and saw that this user has been warned for the same behavior before. It then became clear to me that a block of the same duration for the both of them is what was needed here, and have done so accordingly. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikaviani - Sure, you can report more than one user to AN3. If you're reporting more than one user over the same edit war(s) and over the same content and page(s), you can either do it by creating a report for one user and then by adding the second user to the same report as a comment or in-line next to the first user (in the title and report body as separate evidence), or you can just file two separate reports and then comment on each report about the existence of the other. The first method is what I see used the most, but either way should be just fine. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I figured the process would be something like that. I wasn't sure which of those two methods would be the right one, but it makes sense. Either one works fine. Kurtis (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not very familiar with the EW noticeboard, so I can't say I know much about how things are done over there. I'd imagine that reporting multiple editors is permitted - since edit wars are multi-party affairs by nature, it wouldn't make sense for Wikipedia to place restrictions against submitting more than one user for review. But, like I said, this is not an area in which I have a whole lot of experience. Kurtis (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Kurtis: Reworking EW/N certainly would be a convenience, but with the way EW/N is run right now, ANI certainly helps whenever it is more complex issues than simply an editor violating the 3RR. With that said, I do agree it doesn't make sense to only report one editor for edit warring. I've seen people making three reverts on a page and then turn around and report the other party for 3RR and only the party that violated the 3RR get blocked.—Mythdon (talk/contribs) 08:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Which is very unfortunate. You'd think administrators would be more cautious about things like that. Kurtis (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Kurtis: This was awhile back ago. Although I can understand (to some degree) how administrators can overlook it since EN/W complaints usually only show diffs of one of the offending parties, it's just so easy to game the system by say baiting someone into 3RR. It needs to be made less of a 3RR thing and more of an edit warring thing, where if one user violates 3RR and the other hasn't, there needs to be a way to report both users (as part of one complaint) instead of having to report them individually or having to go to ANI.—Mythdon (talk/contribs) 10:48, 9 October 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 with a history of adding unsourced content[edit]

Blocked 48 hours by Ponyo (non-admin closure) . Kpgjhpjm 05:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A quick reading of a few dozen edits turns up nothing in the way of sources, but lots of unsourced plot descriptions, actors' TV and movie credits, and most recently, original research about athletes. Long term pattern, continuing despite numerous warnings. Seen this many times before, and IPs operating in this way can blemish hundreds of articles without action being taken, but a block and mass reversions would seem justified. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours with the understanding that they can be unblocked at any time if they agree to start citing their sources.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:40, 10 October 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.

Series of unilateral move provocations without any discussion or consensus[edit]

An editor with has performed a series of problematic moves without any consensus, many of which are in explicitly against past consensuses. A motive in provocation is likely, given that the target is Gjon Kastrioti, the object of long and acrimonious talk page fights and continuous move warring with the objective of obscuring the "Albanianness" of the figure, whose son is the national hero of Albania, Skanderbeg. See this earlier move request (Talk:John_of_Castriot#Requested_move_28_June_2018) by a now blocked WP:NOTHERE sockpuppet who was obsessed with proving that Albanians come from Antalya in Turkey and have a "rather poor culture that consists mostly of borrowings from neighbors"

Very interesting is that when performing this move, the user added the supposed Serbian name of Gjon Kastrioti, Ivan Kastriot [[4]], which was an obsession of the past sockpuppet (of course, with some disagreement between the sockpuppet and his "allies" over whether the "correct" Serbian name was Ivan Kastriota, Ivan Kastriot, Jovan Kastriotic, Jovan Kastriota or other permutations of these...).

The current user moved the page to John of Castriot, claiming this is the name in use in the English language. This is patently false. See Google Scholar : zero results [[5]].

Admin help in reverting these disruptive moves is requested. Aside from Gjon Kastrioti, other affected pages include House of Kastrioti ([[6]]) and Gjon Kastrioti II ([[7]]). --Calthinus (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Another technical issue here is that the sockmaster, Irvi Hyka, was renamed after having been blocked for a good long time (see The199206 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))) on several wikis and with an extensive sockpuppet investigation history on this one. Courtesy ping Céréales Killer - is this normal? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Although I also see now that Irvi Hyka is a different case than OP reported. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: I don't think Irvi Hyka is involved here. The relevant master was Aleksander i Madh eshte Shkipetar. But it is not clear whether this new initiative is his work, the user Fongtzack seems to, aside from these moves where he did reproduce AMES' edits, have an independent editing history beforehand. Could be a case of off-wiki recruitment, a very clever sleeper, or something else entirely. The account was created on 20 September, which was indeed after the last AMES sock, but it has a history focusing on the Arab world with occasional Albanian edits. Nevertheless, this was clearly disruptive, and I need help undoing these moves because new redirects were created, preventing me from undoing it.--Calthinus (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar where I have started a new report. I'll comment further on that page with respect to possible sockpuppetry. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I have renamed Irvi Hyka on August because his blocks were since a long time (I do not knew all the history), I though it was no issue with that. Now, If it is needed, I can rename back the user if there are currently problems. Let me know what is your choice. I am not a number (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I had come across one of the socks who was making undiscussed moves at WP:TURKEY articles and was asked to revert, on looking at his contributions, I had posted a note on WP Turkey #Multiple_undiscussed_page_moves, glad to see these sock accounts finally taken care of. --DBigXray 19:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Railroad IP[edit]

What needs to be done regarding the railroad IP? See, for example, (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and (talk · contribs · WHOIS) At User talk:, I warned the IP about incorrect formatting, but the IP is still at it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

And there is reference removal or reference changes, such as here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

EEng's humor confounds as usual... (non-fun police closure) TheDragonFire (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dlohcierekim pieces through the wreckage.
WP:POVRAILROAD? No? EEng 03:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
EEng, so you think that what the IP is doing is fine and that I'm bullying the IP? Whatever the case, since it seems no one is pressed about the IP's edits, except for those who will have to go through and fix all that formatting, I'll leave those articles to others. I only came across the IP via WP:Huggle. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Pinging RHcosm, who also reverted and warned the IP, for a heads up. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
It's a joke. "Railroad IP"... get it? Not my fault no one's taking an interest. EEng 05:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I obviously didn't get the joke. As for no one taking an interest, I'm not pressed about it. Even if disruptive, editors commonly don't see WP:MOS issues as a priority. I brought the issue to the attention of others; my job is done. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The joke is off the tracks like this discussion. I see no way to get a grip on this w/o a range block. It may be they are missing warnings if their IP changes w. each login. I don't think a rnage range block would create a lot of collateral damage.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
So, Special:Contributions/ Should get it. SQLQuery me! 22:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like the edits to railroad-related and railway station-related articles are coming from the IP range as SQL pointed out above. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


Blocked 48 hours by The Blade of the Northern Lights . (non-admin closure) Kpgjhpjm 05:19, 11 October 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.

Facepalm jeez.jpg

SizzleMan (talk), for resumed genre warring and unverified changes in late September through today, following several warnings in past months before a period of inactivity beginning in early September after the final warning. See contributions; every single edit after the inactivity targeted genres in the infobox or added unsourced material to the articles. Some diffs:

In a few instances, they removed citations that verified existing genres in the infobox ([8], [9]). Dan56 (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Barely half an hour passes since being reported here and SizzleMan continues their genre warring here. here and here to name a few. Robvanvee 05:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm blocking for 48 hours, as this user has been completely unresponsive to repeated warnings. That said, Robvanvee, while I understand your frustration go easy on rollback; the edits aren't vandalism, so it's best to do a standard revert with an explanation (such as this). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:39, 10 October 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.

Hidden messages[edit]

A message has been left to the IP user, as requested. If disruption continues, file another ANI report or let me know. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:51, 11 October 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.

IP user,, was in a dispute over format of production codes at M*A*S*H (season 10). The IP user was determined to be correct and now insists on adding several hidden messages to the main page warning others not to change the material. The dispute is over and the content is not hotly contested, so this is unnecessary. I have asked them to simply make their edits and not add 4000 characters worth of hidden messages for an issue that no longer exists. Can someone help explain to them why this is not appropriate? Thanks. Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Basilosauridae - Have you reached out to the IP user directly to express your concerns? I don't see any messages on the IP's user talk page showing that an attempt was made to ask the user to stop doing this and explain why such changes aren't necessary. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I first reverted their edits with a note asking them to just make the edit and that the added hidden messages were over the top. After that, they reached out on my talk page expressing frustration over the situation. Since the talk page discussion, I haven't heard a response from them and instead they re-did their edit today without further discussion. Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Basilosauridae - Ah okay, so it looks like you two last communicated back at the end of September - no worries. I'll be happy to reach out to the user directly and talk to them for you. Just make sure that you don't repeatedly revert the article and fall into the "edit warring pit". I'll try explaining things to them and then we'll see how things go. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Basilosauridae -  Done. The message I left is here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:14, 9 October 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 talk:[edit]

TPA revoked by Acroterion. SemiHypercube 12:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Please remove talk page privileges. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 11:08, 11 October 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.


This specific user has been problematic for months, continually making disruptive that are almost always reverted and constantly making unsourced edits. They have been warned multiple on their talk page for making disruptive and unsourced edits, but have never once replied on their talk page. They also never use edit summaries, which is disruptive. Look at the edit history for List of American Horror Story episodes, where they make the same repeated edits, but are reverted every time, but keep on doing it. Posting warnings on their talk page doesn't do anything, as they continue with the same disruptive behavior. I warned them on adding unsourced content earlier this month, and they just recently made three consecutive edits of adding unsourced content (TV ratings without a reliable source): [10][11][12]. I feel a temporary block is needed here or this type of unhelpful behavior will just continue. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked until they respond on their talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Widespread insertion of bogus references and incorrect information[edit]

It looks like Mill 1 (talk · contribs) has been adding quite a few bogus references and incorrect information to WP:DOY articles. See discussion starting at User_talk:Mill_1#Info_not_found and the following section.

For most editors, I'd WP:AGF, or maybe WP:CIR but given the rants in this discussion about how the change requiring sources for additions to DOY articles is going to fail and then later stating "I have decided not to comply with it and I accept any consequences.", it appears that we have a serious case of WP:SNEAKY vandalism that appears to have potentially far-reaching impact as this editor is quite active on year pages and DOY pages.

I've seen folks not drop the stick, but this looks like sabotage. Toddst1 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Toddst1: I'd really expect to see more evidence than you've given for this being vandalism. It is naturally going to be harder to find reliable sources for people with birth and death dates going back into the middle ages and beyond, and I'm guessing that Mill 1 (talk · contribs) is having difficulty tracking them down. Deb (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
BS. The WP:BURDEN to ensure your references are real is on the person who adds them. This is fundamental to WP:V. If you can't find a good source, you don't fake it:
  1. doesn't even mention the subject
  2. source does not contain the info
  3. source shows that he's entering an incorrect date
  4. source does not contain the info
  5. source shows that he's entering an incorrect date
  6. source says date is not clear but event added anyway
  7. source does not contain the info
These are just in the past few days. How far back do we need to go? There are quite a few non-wikilinked references as well.
This comment from Mill 1, in the context of all this, looks like baiting: "It is going to be really interesting watching the project members enforcing the new level of sourcing regarding new entries on WP:DOY" which was never struck retracted. It certainly paints his actions in a seriously questionable light.
If we want to put aside the fact that he's said he decided not to comply with the requirement for sources and the baiting above, and we wanted to act with the greatest of naivete, we're left with WP:CIR and a bunch of crap added to articles that needs to be combed through along with an editor that should not continue editing. Toddst1 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I contest this accusation. All of the references provided are not bogus and can all be found in the corresponding biographies. Edits regarding WP:DOY and WP:YEARS articles I made are made in good faith. You can read about it on my user page. I particularly resent the accusation of sabotage. Why would I do that if I'm spending so much time on improving WP:DOY and WP:YEARS? Also, I find the term 'widespread' a bit dramatic; I count about 40 34 DOY-edits with references. In closing I find it deceiving that Toddst1 (talk · contribs) quoted my old 'non-comply' statement, which I deleted shortly after. I dropped the stick regarding the new guideline a long time ago. I leave it to this forum to decide whether I am a vandal or not. Mill 1 (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I have spot-checked some of Toddst1’s examples, and found the same inaccuracies. This is insidious misconduct. AGK ■ 21:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with AGK; this is not acceptable. It looks like this user is taking references from the linked article without checking them. The error on Lothar II the Old, Count of Walbeck is in the article as well; the source clearly says that his wife died on 3 Dec 992. If Mill 1 doesn't agree to stop using references they haven't checked for entries on birth/death pages, a block will be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It does appear to me that there are some inaccuracies compared to the cited source, but only in some of those linked (some sources are very rare and I couldn't view them right away to confirm or deny). The Lothar II article does clearly reference his wife (died 3 Dec 992) and his paternal grandmother of Mathilde also died on 3 Dec, it doesn't seem (to me) to say that he died on that day. However, it does seem that is the actual day he died (from another source) [13] The Michael I of Kiev does seem to say that day is his feast day, which is the day the Church either believes he died or chooses to recognize as his death day, so that seems close enough to me. The Dirk II source, seems to confirm that he did die on the day that is claimed by Mill 1. The Egbert edit, the source says he died on the "8 or 9 December" rather than on the 9th of dec. That's fairly close to what was claimed (not far enough I would call vandalism). The Adalbert Atto edit , it does appear to me that he died on the date that Mill 1 claimed[14], but I could not find that at the source cited. Overall I would say both Mill 1 and the OP (Toddst1) seem to be making mistakes. I wouldn't go so far as to call it bad faith mistakes yet by either of them. Mostly, what I suspect is that Mill 1 is finding death days from WP articles and then adding those days to the DOY using the source in the WP article (and assuming that source is correct). Sometimes the original WP page isn't correctly citing the source. Other times the only source on the page doesn't include the death day (even though a death day is in the WP article), and he used that source anyway assuming it included the death day. I wouldn't call that vandalism, but he should be personally double checking the source before he uses it. I would suggest closing this with an admonishment to both of them to be more careful. -Obsidi (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Obsidi, The two sources you supposedly “confirmed“ the dates with are WP:USERG genealogical sites. Perhaps you should refrain from WP:RS discussions - those are pretty obvious. Toddst1 (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, didn't realize they were user generated. -Obsidi (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I think I found a source for Lothar II's death date, but I only have access to it second hand. Maybe someone can get the original source. Supposedly this part of Die sächsischen Grafen 919-1024 is available online [15]. The odd part is that the year of death doesn't seem to match, but all other other details we have do. According to that source he died on 21 January 964. A possible second source I found is Studien und Vorarbeiten zum Historischen Atlas Niedersachsens, which appears to say the same date of death. Is this a different person? Many of the details seem to match, not sure why the years would be so far off. -Obsidi (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Obsidi, your diligence and effort in tracking down these sources is more than commendable. However, you're missing the point: We aren't discussing how we're going to augment/supplant Mill's bogus referencing. What we publish on Wikipedia must be 100% correct and verifiable. Otherwise we are at best fake news and/or a fake encyclopedia.
We're talking about Mill 1's wholesale fakery of sources with either malevolent or incompetent basis. Toddst1 (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, of course the problem before this board is one of behavior not content. But I at least wished to know if there was actual harm to WP done by the actions. Were actually incorrect information added? Maybe others wouldn't care about that, but I at least wanted to find out. -Obsidi (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There is nothing worse than faking references. If people who understand the topic confirm that is the case, the user must be indeffed with no appeal. People who think it is ok use fakery never change their mind. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with your first statement but the references are real and not at all fake; all of them are stated on the linked biography article on either the English or German wiki. Mill 1 (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Where you took these so-called references from is irrelevant - they're bogus. They do not support your statements. Only you are responsible for that. You have compromised the integrity of this project in the most insidious way - and now you've been exposed. Toddst1 (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
And you need to get a fucking grip. --Calton | Talk 09:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

What I think needs to happen is for User:Toddst1 to get a fucking grip. Look at July 8, for example. In the face of this horribly, terribly important need to to add an external link to each and every entry -- and by "horribly, terribly important need", I mean "uselessly redundant busywork" -- there are 96 death entries, of which one (1) has the external link which is so direly important. Which means, basically, the people pushing this have done exactly fuck all to solve this terrible, terrible problem.

Meantime, Mill 1 adds this, using the source that is in the original article and has been since it was created in 2012. And Toddst1 reverts it with the hysterical edit summary more CONFIRMED WP:SNEAKY vandalism by Mill1.

So according to Toddst1, the problem here is Mill 1, not the original bad source -- which I notice that Toddst1 hasn't bothered to fix, either -- and this is "vandalism". Really? Does he actually know the meaning of the term "vandalism"? This is not just assuming bad faith, it's ABF on steroids. --Calton | Talk 09:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Would it be a problem if an editor were found to have used sources which investigation showed failed to verify a claim? What if there were numerous examples of that? Have you investigated the seven links above "These are just in the past few days"? I haven't examined the situation but I know that there is a gigantic problem if the statements about source misuse are accurate. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I looked at some of them and yes, there are errors, but at least one of them (the second one in the list) looks correct to me. I haven't got the books or access levels to check them all out. What I'm thinking is that maybe we could introduce notes for entries in earlier centuries, such as "(estimated)", "(feast day)", etc, so that people know how reliable or otherwise the dates are. My main concern about the introduction of the need for references into these articles is, and always has been, that it would work against the need to combat recentism and at least attempt a global approach, instead of the very US- and Western-biased list that currently exists. A plethora of references doesn't necessarily mean that an individual is more important or more historically significant than any other. We currently have an over-abundance of Australian sportsmen, European footballers and 21st century "celebrities" that would sink a ship. I've been banging my head against a brick wall for some years now in an attempt to improve these lists but few people seem to be willing to recognise that there's a problem. User:Toddst1's changes to the guidelines have been of some (rather unexpected) assistance in removing crap, but there's a need to recognise the difficulties inherent in the need to enforce the changes. Deb (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
If by the Michael of Kiev one, Google translate here does not seem to confirm the death date. It gives the feast day as 15 June, but that does not equate all the time to death date. Further in the article it says "The memory of St Michael is also honored as late as 30 September". This leaves aside whether the website ( is a reliable source - Google translate gives this as the about page, which seems to me to be a personal website using Orthodox Church materials only for the information. The third entry in the list is sourcing something to the Medieval Lands project, which is not the best source (to put it mildly, it's generally considered not reliable at WP:RSN) but the edit is putting the death date of Lothar II's WIFE on Lothar II himself. The source clearly gives Lothar's death date at 986 with no specific date listed. (Thankfully, someone has corrected these errors). The fourth one is sourced to this reference which gives the dates for Folcuin as "ca. 935-990". There is no date given for his death beyond a circa 990 date. The fifth one is again to medieval lands, but the title given is not supported in the source - the source clearly states "Dirk II Count of Holland" with no mention of "Count of Frisia" connected to Dirk II. I could go on but... why? These are just sources I can check online. Granted - this is an endemic problem across wikipedia - things that were originally sourced correctly get moved around or someone comes along and inserts further information into a sentence with a source without caring whether the given source actually supports the new information. This is why its not enough to rely on something in a list article being sourced in another wikipedia article linked to the list. Nor is it enough to just copy the information from the linked article to the list. The source must be checked before being used. If you copy over a source from another article without checking and understanding it (aka the use of the wife's death date instead of the husbands above), you're not helping ... you're actually hurting the encyclopedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Further problems - edit from 7 October adding a source but the source is a personal geneaology site. Another problematic source - this edit and this corresponding edit are sourced to this site in German. The FAQ for the site through Google translate gives this page which says "Scientific claim?: The required extensive study of sources is usually not possible for us. But the Ecumenical Holy Encyclopaedia arose not least from annoyance that the information given in the Holy Directory is often contradictory or even obviously false. So we strive for clarification and as reliable as possible information through careful research. An important role for reliability plays the committed cooperation of our readers: their corrections - often by proven experts - ensure that the Ecumenical Holy Encyclopaedia is becoming ever more reliable." Later, the FAQ says the copyright is with "the author, Joachim Schäfer in Stuttgart". Is he an expert on medieval German history? What makes this source a reliable one? We don't know... and thus the information is not helpful because it's probably not reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't deny that the need to add refs for birth and death dates has possibly caused User:Mill 1 to act in desperation, perhaps seeking references in the wrong places. However, over time he has worked hard to ameliorate the effects of recentism, which is still a major problem on the DOTY pages as far as I'm concerned - and frankly, makes these pages a laughing stock even before we get into the business of what sources are and are not reliable. I must ask also, would you favour the removal of such dates from the articles concerned, or would you limit yourself to including a note that they may not be correct? Deb (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that adding information without sources or, worse, with wrong or unreliable sources, is much more of a concern than the effects of recentism. It’s not like I don’t know the problems of medieval sourcing, but sloppiness isn’t helping at all and is only making things worse. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay. How would it be if we all start working together to eliminate entries from the date articles where there is no reliable reference for birthdate? Deb (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you seen the WP:DOY articles? Look at today's article: October 8, I see 403 entries, and not a single one cited. Are we really going to nuke all of the content from these articles? -Obsidi (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, for a start, we shouldn't really have more than fifty birth and death entries on a date page - it's way too many. Deb (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This seems to me to be the proper consequence of poor or absent attention to sourcing of content in all these 'showcases', arbitrary assemblages of unquestioned data are ubiquitous in article space and elsewhere, yet there is little disincentive for willing contributors to do the same (the motive being irrelevant). The more experienced contributors who tolerate, encourage, or participate in this sort of editing might try to stand back and ponder the net value of time and energy expended on this type of contribution versus encouraging people to read good sources and add the facts they find. Those who pile on to point out the obvious about unsourced content might prefer to expend their energy on forestalling this happening in future, rather than chastising those who have been actively encouraged by experienced users (not OP, they are always delightful[citation needed]). Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts on this. — cygnis insignis
  • Comment - There may well be people reading and participating in this discussion who aren't aware that, for the first few years of Wikipedia, and certainly when most of the Date articles were created, there was no compulsion to include any references to third-party sources in any article. Hence you will find plenty of unreferenced content already in existence and correcting it all will take a lot longer than it took to create it in the first place.Deb (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, that would be from 2007 till 2017, no citations were required. -Obsidi (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
No. I mean that no citations were required in any articles for the first few years of the project. References may have been used by some editors, but they were not obligatory. Deb (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I suggest we put together a table of sources (sound/difficult to check/erroneous) that Mill 1 has added. We seem to be drawing different conclusions, which makes it difficult to analyse the problem. The devil's in the detail here. AGK ■ 18:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Here is my list (of the ones cited by Toddst1, I'm not including all of the additions by Mill 1):
Henry I difficult to check
Michael I soundclose (if you accept feast day = death day)
Lothar II erroneous (date was for wife not him)
Saint Bertin difficult to check
Dirk II sound
Egbert close (Source said "8 or 9 December", but used on the DOY of 9th of Dec.)
Adalbert Atto erroneous (could not find in source)
All of them that I can see, had a recorded death date in the WP article (which was the date that Mill 1 used), and he pulled a source from the WP article (I guess assuming that source was the basis for the death date in the article as it was usually the only source in the WP article). He did not change the WP article itself to add the death date, I believe that was prior to his adding the person to the DOY list. -Obsidi (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
One more:
Richardis erroneous (but mirrors article; perhaps the source is just applicable to a different noble)
AGK ■ 18:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, as far as I can tell that death date is accurate [16], but I could not find it in source cited. (The only mention was that she was married to Liutpold and uses the name "Richwara", which is another one of the names she is called. I've seen Richardis, Richwar, Richarda, and Richwara all used as her name. Clicking on the link that is her name, you can find her entry, but I don't see any death date recorded in that source.) Do you want me to merge that into one table? -Obsidi (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
No... if the source says "8 or 9 December" it is NOT okay to pick one and put it on that date. That's not being true to the source. Nor can we "accept feast day = death day" ... that's assuming something that's not in the source. In this case, when the source says that there was also commemorations on another day - that means there are possibly TWO death dates (and that assumes that the source is a reliable one (which I doubt, still haven't seen anything that says that's a reliable source by our standards)) or perhaps neither of those days is the death date because ... the source does not say "commemorated on his death date" so it's WP:OR to assume that "feast day=death date". Good gods, people... this is elemenatary editing - we don't pick one date from two presented in the source nor do we assume something that isn't in the source. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree if the source says "8 or 9 Dec." He shouldn't just pick one. But this is a question of intention, was he trying to just screw up WP by entering false information? That would be sneaky vandalism. I don't think that what he did rises to that, which is why I marked it as "close" and not "sound." The feast date is close, but not exactly the death day. The feast day would be the death day if it was known usually. Maybe I should mark that is close as well. Still, it is a question of was he sloppy or doing it intentionally, I think you have to come down on the sloppy side of things and not the intentional vandalism. -Obsidi (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Uninvolved admin review: This is getting wordy. As I understand it, it seems clear now that User:Mill 1 has been taking the source allegedly used to "confirm" a date from the article, and using it as a source on the DOY page, without independently confirming that it actually supports the date. Mill 1 is not the original creator of these bad references. That's bad practice and needs to stop, but attributing it to "sneaky vandalism" - an actual desire to damage the encyclopedia - is unjustifiable. Perhaps that characterization is the result of frustration, tho.
    • @Toddst1:, is there any other behavior besides this that you're alleging? On reflection, do you really believe that this is being done intentionally?
    • @Mill 1:, I assume you agree to not do this anymore? (That's phrased as a question to be polite, but for the sake of clarity, what I really mean is: Mill 1, you must stop doing this.)
I agree to stop using sources directly from the bio's since it now clear they cannot be trusted. I also apologize for this practise (again, no malevolence intended) but am happy that via this discussion a deeper rooted problem regarding DOY has been identified.Mill 1 (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
So if that's the only problem, and if Mill 1 agrees to stop, I think the only remaining things to discuss here, and what we should re-focus on, are:
  • How much of this is still in the DOY articles? How easy would it be to identify edits where this was done, and revert them? Should we just revert all of Mill 1's edits where they blindly copied a reference from an article?
  • Assuming Mill 1 wasn't actively looking for incorrect references to copy over to DOY pages, the rate that their references were wrong roughly approximates the rate that errors in the main articles were wrong. That's pretty disturbing. We should aim to identify those cases and fix them in the articles too. Maybe as a subpage of WP:DOY? I don't know the best way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
You will find that the number entries is quite limited since I only recently refocused my efforts on DOY. In all I added 34 entries:
  • September 30: 6 entries
  • October 2: 3 entries
  • October 6: 16 entries
  • October 7: 9 entries
11 of them have already been reverted by my nemesis.Mill 1 (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It would seem to me more profitable to just check the references that are present in DOY articles (still a tiny minority) and add reliable references where we find wrong ones. Where we can't find a reference, we remove that entry. Deb (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Just a general comment on dates & history, for general reference. Although people involved in this thread probably know more than me about this subject.

  • Birth dates are always problematic, & the further back in time the more they need to have a reference. People tended to ignore this information, & even in contemporary third-world societies adults sometime don't know the year of their birth. We lack this information for many people, even famous ones; so having a date of birth for someone before, say AD 1000, is unusual & needs a citation. Sometimes we have to settle for the next best thing, such as date of baptism.
  • Death dates are less problematic, because people tend to notice when other people die. The same problem exists: the further back in time a death is placed, the more problematic its reliability. For some deaths, there is an anchor that helps us to determine when the subject died (e.g., a battle, a natural disaster, or an astronomical event); for others, any date is based on a lot of surmise or inference, so experts may disagree on the date. (So WP:NPOV matters here.)
  • Other events vary in difficulty, but the further back in time they are the less certain we are about the date. In some cases, this is because of literary convention: many Greek historians purposely omit mentioning the date of any battle or other significant event. In others it is due to lack of information. From my experience, for Europe we only have information about dates on a regular basis from the time of the Roman Empire forward; for Japan, from about AD 900 forward; for Ethiopia, much later, from about AD 1400 forward; for China, the period may be as early as 200 BC. (The Chinese kept very good records, & managed to avoid much of the destruction that plagued Europe & Ethiopia.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Broome, Western Australia[edit]

Would someone mind imposing a block on The Drover's Wife for hoaxing and personal attacks? She's persistently adding a claim that slavery existed in the Broome article in the late 19th century, despite the cited source never making such a statement; and when I've reverted, all I've gotten is personal attacks.

Background: the article states that slavery and slavery-like conditions existed in this place in the 1880s, but as slavery was ended in 1833, I removed the statement. To my surprise, I was reverted with a fierce response, and while giving a warning at her talk, I noted that the cited source never said that slavery existed at this site. (The source's only uses of the string slav are a bit about slavery-like conditions and a note about the 1833 action, page 45; a note that "reports" of slavery were made, page 110; and a citation to a work with slaves in the title, page 217.) She re-reverted, which I again reverted and accompanied with a stern warning about hoaxing, and all that happened was a re-re-revert. [I'm at 2RR, but I'm not going to 3RR (as she already has), let alone surpassing it.] Moreover, I've been given repeated baseless allegations: I'm "misrepresenting both the detail and character of sources", I'm "flagrantly misrepresenting a source", and I'm trying to "play unsupportable ideological games".

Adding a claim of X with a citation is a claim that the cited source says X: if it does not, you've added a hoax. (Moreover, remember that WP:V demands a citation that directly supports anything that's been challenged, and I've demonstrated that the citation does not support the challenged content.) There's room for lenience the first time (typos, misunderstanding the source, etc.), but when you're repeatedly reverted with warnings and yet you restore the hoax and respond as I note above, it's beyond time for lenience. Moreover, WP:WIAPA provides that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are a kind of personal attacks, and she's presented no evidence for source misrepresentation or doing something for any reason other than enforcing compliance with the sources. [Hint: I've never heard of Broome before, and I wasn't aware that there was a dispute on this subject; I couldn't have had an opinion on the question.] There's no room for tolerating the combination of hoaxing and personal attacks. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

User Nyttend seems not to have any knowledge of Blackbirding in Australia, and appears to be involved in an edit war. Another uninvolved editor has suggested that the discussion be moved to the Australian Wikipedians' notice board for improvements to this article, and I've added a couple other related articles to that discussion that also need better references. Bahudhara (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
This is surreal. Nyttend has a very strong point-of-view (that slavery in Australia definitively never existed because of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 and because of his own opinion as to the definition of slavery (which differs from the statutory definition of slavery in both the UK and Australia). Neither of these points of view are well supported in reliable sources. I reinserted content that was supported by the cited source. These are obviously complex issues, and I am very open to different wording - all I'm definitively opposed to is Nyttend's blanket POV. Nyttend's entire response to this issue has been to repeatedly accuse me of "hoaxing" for not sharing his POV, threaten to have me blocked and revert without explanation.
Considering Nyttend has repeatedly accused me of "hoaxing" for insisting on a mainstream interpretation of Australian history, it is a bit rich to claim that I'm the one making personal attacks. He claimed a source published by the Australian Heritage Commission was written by "environment specialists" and not historians in a false attempt to dismiss it. He suggests that the source did not support a reference to "slavery", when it plainly does in context - again, happy to workshop language as to exactly what one says about the disputed section (again, this stuff is obviously nuanced and complex), just opposed to the attempt to remove any reference to slavery in any context. Nyttend's behaviour has been ridiculously aggressive from the get-go and is blocking what seems to be a reasonably easy issue to resolve if one focuses on sources instead of his established and overtly-stated point of view. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
An editor I've never come across just posted this link from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on my talk page, which is another brilliant example of the sort of mainstream history that Jyttend has threatened to have me banned for including because it differs from his personal POV. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I requested the two editors to note the issue is better in the Australian project - to try to lose the personal point making. As what happens when it gets lost in the interpersonal unnecessarily. Please see Australian the notice board to see why I suggested as such. Please also see the article itself to see why I believe there are some apologies required, and the term 'hoaxing' dropped. JarrahTree 02:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment from an uninvolved editor, looks like a content dispute that shouldn't have escalated to the point where an WP:ANI report was necessary, it's definitely not a hoax, I posted some references at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board to illustrate it is the mainstream view of Australian history. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Nyttend claims slavery could not exist because slavery was illegal and the first sentence of Wikipedia's Slavery article defines slavery as de jure.[17] Yes, the UK parliament did pass the Slavery Abolition Act 1833; it also passed the Modern Slavery Act 2015 because slavery has persisted. That is not a hoax. Experienced Wikipedia editors should know that the first sentence of a Wikipedia article is not always perfect. (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
This item needs closing as resolved. Neither of the main protagonists in this argument seem the slightest interested in closing the issues specifically here. The placement of further information at WP:AWNB sidesteps the conflict here, but places further evidence suggesting that there is no hoax on the part of well intentioned writers on the subject.JarrahTree 23:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
The content dispute is pretty obviously solved at this point, yes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I do note that Nyttend's only response to the various responses here and at WP:AWNB has been to post on his talk page accusing everyone who replied of "defending abuse of sources" and complaining that the responses were "patronising comments with no basis in reality" for not sharing his opinion. This is unbelievable behaviour for an administrator. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment by uninvolved administrator: I see some initial edit warring by several parties. I also find much of the participation by The Drover's Wife tends to increase tension and ill-will; a certain abrasiveness there is not helping. All this said, after 3 reverts from either side the dispute moved onto the talk page. It has remained there. Suggest no action. AGK ■ 11:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Unhelpful behaviour on both sides, an obnoxious collaborator versus this excessive response, I prefer to avoid the first and am dismayed that the second, an admin fwiw, appears to be disparaging other users and drama mongering to serve a reactionary pov (I hope that is wrong). I think a respected peer should remind other admins of what we are doing here. — cygnis insignis 20:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment by another uninvolved administrator: I'm seeing here symptoms of another long-term Wikipedian heading towards terminal burnout. -- llywrch (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment it does on the face of things looks like another Wikipedian burnout but it appears to be building to something more unsightly that will require a response from ANI or possibly ARBCOM in the future. The reference to slavery like conditions existing in Broome is itself accurate and continued to some extent across the region until the Noonkanbah dispute of 1970's. Gnangarra 23:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Lachlb and time zone articles[edit]

Blocked for 72 hours. (non-admin closure) . Kpgjhpjm 04:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This new editor arrived on the scene today, and immediately made a number of incorrect changes to several time zone related articles, and only such articles. Nothing else. No Edit summaries. Nothing in Talk pages. The first ones I noticed involved Australian time zones (I'm an Aussie, so I noticed), so I reverted, and eventually asked him to stop, on hs Talk page. This achieved nothing. No response. The edits continued. I eventually reverted quite a few, but was unsure about a few others, so haven't touched them. Maybe someone with more knowledge of the area can do so. These can be seen on his User contributions page.

His appearance lasted a little over an hour. He has done nothing since. HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

That appears to be User:Lachlb, not User:Lachb as raised. HiLo48, I'm pretty sure of that (so I've updated the section heading) but can you confirm that it's now correct? Andrewa (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
You are quite correct. Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I see that some of their contributions at least are still unreverted as I write. [18] If it's a vandalism-only account of course it's a simple and immediate indef.

That particular contribution does perhaps contain some valid content... adding Malé to the time zone UTC+5 is correct. [19] Except they've added it as Male which is not. Andrewa (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I've mass reverted all edits whilst we discuss further. On the face of it all the edits seems poor. GiantSnowman 09:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
He's at it again. See List of UTC time offsets. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Blocked for 72 hours to give them an opportunity to respond on their talk page to the concerns raised about their editing. Should a satisfactory response be provided, any admin please feel free to unblock without checking with me. Should one not be provided and they resume the crappy editing, I would imagine an indefinite block will be imposed. Fish+Karate 09:37, 10 October 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.

Note they've decided to evade their block and edit from an IP address. IP is now blocked, I recommend indeffing the main account. Canterbury Tail talk 02:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

List of conspiracy theories - Deep state section[edit]

(non-admin closure) Boldly closing because of extreme going-nowhere-ness. WP:TROUT implied. Kleuske (talk) 14:58, 11 October 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 Slatersteven and I have been in continues disagreement, to me seemingly cause he does not want to read sources and cause he has inherent bias. We took it to Talk section of page, then to personal talk pages I accused him of incompetency (which he displays in my mind without a question and he tried to spin it as PA and even threatened me on my talk page). I would like Administrators and preferably persons without emotional investment in politics to look it up. I feel like entire section defining term is a blatant cop-out with left wing bias and entire section is pretty much attack on Donald Trump (person I dont really care about) instead on focusing on issues and facts and even reading sources with understanding. I would like to point out I mentioned turkish 2016 coup and Steven started with whatabouthery and mentioning Greek coup which is not issue at hand and does not apply to our subject (deep state). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talkcontribs) 10:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

In two days from being a new user to filing an ANI-case... That escalated pretty damn fast. There's major WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL issues here, but not on Slatersteven part. The appropriate reaction to someone disagreeing with you is not calling them incompetent (more than once). Since you are new here, I recommend a firm WP:TROUTing. If you weren't, I'd recommend a WP:BOOMERANG Kleuske (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Besides... You are obliged to notify Slatersteven on his talk-page. See the big red banner at the top of this page. Kleuske (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
By continuously he means since he first stated editing about 24 hours ago, on the only article he has edited.
Here is his first edit in the article talk page [[20]], which he claims is proof there is a deep state. Here is his second (and last post to that thread [[21]]. I asked him not to make PA's here [[22]], and his response to it. It is clear the user is wp:nothere. Now I know about do not bite newbies, but I have tried to tell them not to make PA's to read our polices on OR and synthesis. They have not listensed and have instead fallen back on attacking me.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Well I am pretty passionate about topic and I know what I am talking about. Also how can he ask me numerous times to quote him source, thought it is given he have all read the sources with understanding already.. I will do my post to oblige by wikipedia rules, but lets focus on topic here - editor does not read sources with understanding and tries to avoid facts. Also Steven, I did talk about other topics, notably modern architecture and Art Deco, Art Nouveau. This is yet another ad hominem attack to sidestep issue at hand.MrStefanWolf (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, lets make this easy. Provide one source here that says the deep state exists in all the instances we list in the article. Sorry I should have said, on the only article we have both edited. But as far as I can tell you have only edited on two articles, the conspiracy article and one about visas.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You have opinions, but it's not clear that you "know what you're talking about", at least in the context of writing a Wikipedia article. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
No, Steven you cant use and hijacked term well know and used beforehand. Term did not originate in USA, it did not originate in contemporary time and if some theorist are trying to hijack term that needs to put to an end, not to play along with them. Deep State is not Power elite that is literally made up. It always referred to entrenched bureaucrats usually in military and intelligence community as provided in sources. If you want to argue unique usage of term by Donald Trump thats on you, but term Deep State needs to be left alone along with its definition that I repeat is provided in sources and consensus is clear. MrStefanWolf (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
As a point of clarification, it's not accurate that MrStefanWolf has only edited one article. First, they didn't edit any article, only talk pages. Second and more importantly, their first edit outside of creating their user page was this [23] to Talk:H-1B visa. Later [24] to the same page. It's true most of their edits were concerning that list until albeit ignoring stuff postdating this ANI, only two edits to the article talk page and a whole host of edits concerning the article on their talk page and SlaterSteven's talk page and this ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I have already accepted this is not the case (well the part about this being the only article they have edited).Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@MrStefanWolf: I'll cut you some slack since you're new but this isn't the purpose of ANI. If you have a content dispute which you can't resolve, you should use some form of WP:Dispute resolution, none of which should need ANI. Note that before you do so, you really need to take onboard what others have told you and make sure you aren't simply wrong, otherwise you may simply end up wasting everyone's time. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 9 October 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.

Somebody's harassing me on French Wikipedia?[edit]

Resolved at frwiki, w:fr:Spécial:Contributions/1Granddrip has been indef blocked. — xaosflux Talk 16:46, 11 October 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 don't speak French so I can't raise the issue on the French equivalent of ANI. They've made one contribution on the French Wikipedia, which is harassing me (in English): [25]. And their username doesn't appear to exist on the English Wikipedia. Thanks for your help. --ChiveFungi (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@ChiveFungi: Despite everything I heard about French people, I'm pretty sure fr-wiki admins, at least some of them, speak English. I'd just post it to fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs and ask them to please handle this as they see fit. Regards SoWhy 16:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Well yes, we do happen to have some English speakers on the French wiki, actually quite many since a good proportion of our articles are translated from en:wiki :) Also not everyone on the French wiki is French, app. 70% the rest being Belgians, Swiss, Quebecois... Anyway, I blocked the troll. Best regards From the French Wiki :) --Kimdime (talk) 16:52, 11 October 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.

Somebody claiming to be the same person is back (and of course claiming victimhood, lol). Now on MetaWiki: [26]. Again, no idea how to report the issue there. Any way to block their IP address from registering new accounts across Wikimedia projects? Presumably they were banned on English Wikipedia (at my request, perhaps?) and have resorted to harassing me through the other Wikimedia wikis. Thanks. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Reported at m:Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat#Vandal on Meta. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

user:Kishor salvi india[edit]

indeffed by Ad Orientem for being "clearly NOTHERE". —usernamekiran(talk) 04:41, 12 October 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:Kishor salvi india is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Few days ago, he kept adding himself to caste of Tujhyat Jeev Rangala, and added his name to a few lists, and even one category. He was warned appropriately every time. After one similar edit, I gave him "final warning". Few hours after that warning, he created an article about himself. By the time i saw it, the user was inactive, and I thought he stopped editing. But he did it again a few hours ago from now. I think its time for a block. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. Clearly NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:24, 12 October 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.[edit]

An anon user has started off removing talk page posts against talk page rules, sourced content, and adding incorrect information to a page. After reverted, I was contacted by the anon, who is clearly trying to edit war and OWN the pages. I reverted again with edit summaries only to be reverted again and this post added to my talk page asking me to "recuse myself" (OK?). Anyway, the anon has went into my edit history and began editing pages I have edited before with snarky edit summaries trying to get a rise out of me, as well as continuing to add incorrect information to pages. So, I bring this to you all.

Personally, I think a complete revert of all edits, a 3RR warning, and a strongly written warning regarding this type of behavior from an admin would be a good start. But those are just my suggestions, you can tell me to, as my Brit friends say, "bugger off" and do whatever you like. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:14 on October 9, 2018 (UTC)

I just rolled back an edit where the IP blanked an entire talk page here, as well as some other edits. The user is stating in their edit summaries with their reverts on WGLI that the source provided doesn't support that the content is describing. Apart from the disruptive edits, there appears to be edits over content that should be discussed. Other than your response here, have you tried to communicate and kindly explain why he may be incorrect with his edits at WGLI? Have you attempted to collaborate with the user and work with them to resolve things? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
NeutralHomer seems to regard himself as an authority on these topics. Yet he posts incorrect information. He insists on misrepresenting the coverage of a radio station that is not supported by his own maps and using incorrect information in other articles. When made aware of his undoing of my proper edits, I read some of his other articles and became aware that he is a far from neutral and rather neurotic person who wants to change correct information posted by those who may know more about the subject in question than he does. He needs to prove his assertions of signal coverage and slogans/format names, or accept the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Regarding the WPJX page, when I added multiple sources to all reliable sources per RS, the anon came through and manually reverted the changes against the sources. Apparently he thinks Arbitron is the end all, be all. For the record, Arbitron (now owned by Nielsen) shows the station still carrying a Spanish Contemporary format (which is previously did).
While I was writing this, the anon reverted the WPJX page, YET AGAIN, against sources, and blanked his talk page. Clearly he is not interested in conversation and more interested in OWNing an article and slinging insults. A block is needed for the anon, I will not make any further edits to the anon's edits, regardless of how incorrect they are. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:36 on October 9, 2018 (UTC)
Neutralhomer - Don't worry about his/her user talk page. Users are allowed to blank their own talk page and remove comments and discussions from them if they wish. You notified them properly of this discussion; their removal acknowledges that they saw it. No need to worry about their talk page beyond that. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
What the station programmers call the format isn't relevant. The station doesn't program a "metal" format. The industry nomenclature is proper and used to categorize stations on Wikipedia. No commercial radio station in North America programs a purely "heavy metal" format. Heavy Metal is a musical genre. Active Rock is a radio format that includes heavy metal and other forms of hard music - his own sources admit the station has a Punk show, for example. You are not on Wikipedia to serve as PR mouthpiece for radio programmers. If you are so biased, recuse yourself from the topic. Numerous people have called you out on errors that you keep reverting to in radio articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I've reverted on WPJX. They have an 'about us' page where it is literally spelled out 'Rebel Radio has been cranking out hard rock and heavy metal over the air waves since July 10, 1994'. They likely give little to no care about Nielsen and their ratings at all and the station is run as an enthusiast project rather than a pure commercial effort (and I'm 99% certain they don't subscribe to Nielsen ratings, so basically they would likely reject whatever format box Nielsen puts them in anyways and probably laugh at the 'industry'; honestly they'd probably laugh at us trying to also categorize them within an article). We go with that. At the very least, a radio station is allowed to say what their format is. Nate (chatter) 23:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC), if you read what the Active Rock format is, you would know you are wrong. In it's most watered down form, it's new commercial-based rock, ie: Halestorm, Breaking Benjamin, Metallica, Bad Wolves, Five Finger Death Punch, Shinedown, etc. What WPJX plays is Broken Hope, EyeHateGod, Jinjer, Sunflo’er, Kyuss, etc. Clearly neither are the same. There is no crossover between Active Rock and Heavy Metal. WPJX and Rebel Radio plays a Heavy Metal format, not an Active Rock one found on stations like WNOR, KRZN, WIIL, and other stations nationwide. - NeutralhomerTalk • 00:03 on October 10, 2018 (UTC)
@Oshwah: I never really got to discuss anything with the anon (especially WGLI) and when the user began blanking his talk page, which I do know is his/her choice, I saw no reason for it until the user calmed down. I would be interested in talking with the user, but until they calm down and are more open to discussion with me, I see no reason. - NeutralhomerTalk • 00:06 on October 10, 2018 (UTC)
Neutralhomer, have you actually read WP:OR? (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
It looks like you two have at least opened a dialogue of communication to one another here, which is a great first step. I encourage you both to relax, agree that you plan to discuss things with one another and try and work things out, and be completely civil to each other when you do so... agree to consider this as a "we started on the wrong foot" moment, "sorry" - and go from there. Work issues out one-at-a-time; don't go off about a bunch of things in one response. A big part of the dispute is whether or not the map in the source actually represents that radio frequency coverage exists in certain areas. Start with this disagreement and just this one, go to Talk:WPJX, start over and with a new discussion - wipe the slate clean and shake hands, and explain your thoughts thoroughly, calmly, and respectfully. One one issue is worked out, move on to another. I'm here should either of you have questions or concerns for me. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@Oshwah: I considered talking with the anon, but after he/she continued to blank his/her comments from my talk page, along with my entire talk page, and this nonsense on the WELY page including the "proper tense" of the station's branding over the one used. WELY uses the branding "End of the Radio Radio", while the anon insists it's "Radio at the End of the Road" even though the station's website and social media contradict this. Perhaps he/she is going an extreme form of proper English? Whatever the reasoning, it showed me that he/she was not interested in discussing anything and was still being disruptive. If the anon is willing to calm down what is clearly disruptive behavior, I will be more than happy to discuss the WPJX article, the WELY article, the WGLI article, whatever. But with his/her behavior as it is, it's not worth my time.

That said, I do believe that something needs to be done, as the anon's behavior has verged into the disruptive as evidenced by his/her edits to my talk page (after warnings) and to the WELY page. A stern warning might help. - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:40 on October 11, 2018 (UTC)

Now he's blanked the entire section regarding the station's branding. Anyone like to step in? - NeutralhomerTalk • 19:30 on October 12, 2018 (UTC)
@Oshwah: The anon has now back-tracked one of my edits and reverted it, no comment, just a revert. I'm tired of playing (and this board's inactivity on this matter) and have issued a Warn4IM warning for vandalism. Would one of you like to do something about this or should we allow an anon to vandalize other articles? - NeutralhomerTalk • 19:14 on October 13, 2018 (UTC)


I just blocked IP for a week on graphic image vandalism. This is not their only recent block for the same behavior. Is there a more effective long-term way to handle this IP? The pattern is that they will keep doing it, no matter how many blocks are applied. — Maile (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Block them for a lot longer, and block the range if necessary. The last block on that range was 21 days, with no significant collateral damage. I recommend at least 60 days. Also, add the image to the BADIMAGES file (I've already done so) and revdel the diffs so they can't just be reverted and so people don't get a NSFW surprise when checking history. I'm working my way through the revdels. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
They appear to have been trying to do this for a long time, and I see no harm in a rangeblock of six months to a year. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and blocked for six months, as I see little collateral damage. Acroterion (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd support an edit filter that prevents changes to images or addition of new images in TFA by IPs and non-autoconfirmed accounts - that would take care of much of this shock image trouble on TFAs. Acroterion (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. In this case, it wasn't TFA, just sticking porn into articles. I also support a filter preventing IPs from doing this. — Maile (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually it did involve TFA: Camille Saint-Saëns, and there's a discussion about TFA edit filters over at AN. Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
This is a globally locked account that is behind this and I've asked the stewards to evaluate this range on other projects. As far as collateral, there are two uninvolved accounts that will probably be affected but they can request IPBE.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Are open proxies being used for this? The IP above seems to host a website [27] which is a login page copyrighted by Hikvision Digital Technology suggesting to me a compromised IP camera may have been used Nil Einne (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe so. I don't believe that it is a compromised device, either.