Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Muhiyidin Moye

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

ChiveFungi aggressive insulting attitude

Dear Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

• (Non-admin comment) - I have removed the ANI template from the header and placed on the accused's talkpage on behalf of filer - courtesy ping ChiveFungi Nightfury 13:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• TL;DR - Just gonna throw my 2 cents in but looking at the replies from both users personally both deserve blocking for incivilty. –Davey2010^Talk 14:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed, although I think PetePassword's incivility is the greater of the two. ChiveFungi stuck to template messages after that initial comment, whereas PetePassword has gone on to call ChiveFungi a "dickhead" [1], ask "What's your mental problem" [2], and say "I suspect his ego can't handle what it sees as criticism, a common problem among juveniles" [3]. Marianna251TALK 14:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, then it looks like they both need final warnings for incivility and for making personal attacks - can we do this and call it at that? Or does anyone feel that further digging and/or action may be needed? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wouldn't call it racist, just right-wing editorializing based on original research (to put it charitably). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

From the content, tone and writing style, I think that IP could easily be PetePassword. It's certainly in line with opinions they've expressed elsewhere, e.g. [4][5]. I haven't filed an SPI because it's probable that they forgot to log in rather than any other motives. Marianna251TALK 23:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

IP editor 86.87.212.214 - long-term disruptive editing, no communication.

86.87.212.214 (talk · contribs) appears to have a fixed IP number, and a history of the same pattern of exclusively unconstructive edits, going back about a year. They're sporadic, less than 40 in total, usually small changes. Many of them are unexplained removals of well-sourced material which apparently conflicts with their views about Iran. They often involve removals of mentions of Turkic, Arab, and Jewish people, eg. [6], [7], [8]. Many are clumsy changes in the attribution of the origin of some word, food dish, etc., to their own country, eg. [9], [10], [11]. The editor has never used an edit summary, nor participated in a talk page. They appear to be unaware of their own talk page, warnings, and a recent 24-hour block. They don't seem to be hostile or engage in edit wars; they're oblivious to the fact that essentially all of their edits have been reverted, by many different editors. There may be one or two edits that are not completly wrong. I suppose it must be assumed they're editing in good faith, however misguided, rather than vandalizing. But it seems to me they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, so much as to push crude nationalistic beliefs, and there's no hope of improvement if they won't communicate with anyone. --IamNotU (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

See Jasper2018 (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

When it rains, it pours... The "it wasn't me" defence would be easier to believe, despite the close resemblance of the earlier edits, if 86.87.212.214 was a dynamic IP from Iran, rather than a (normally fixed) IP from KPN in the Netherlands.[12] Also, compare these edits, one from last October, and the one from yesterday: [13] / [14]. --IamNotU (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I do not know why this person response from their account on the IP talk page instead of here, but maybe we should be grateful. I believe they are incompetent (for linguistics reasons, and the aforementioned oblivion) for the English Wikipedia, and if you throw in edits like this one, yeah. Don't rightly know what to do--we could throw out an indefinite block, of course, but I'm not feeling that this morning. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what to do either. I'm ok with whatever anyone suggests. I'm not familiar with what options there might be other than blocking, it's only the second time I've posted something at ANI. I certainly don't want to interact with this person, after the incoherent tirade about conspiracies involving me and phantom Turkish fascists... --IamNotU (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, IamNotU: If there are language barriers, why not ask them what their primary language is and help them by linking them to the Wikipedia sister project of their primary language? Then they can go through the tutorials there (if applicable) and if the user wishes to, return here after being affiliated with the project. Who knows... (s)he may just find that they prefer editing on that language project instead of here and that was what they were looking for all along :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• I assume their native language is Persian, and they're aware of fa.wikipedia.org. By their own account, they've been using Wikipedia for at least four years. Oshwah, did you have a look at the monologue at their talk page? The language barrier is high, they're not able to correctly read my comment, nor the articles, that they're railing against. But that's not the biggest problem. Besides the transparent denial of making the edits in question, their essay makes it clear that their purpose is "to make it correct the way i have educated myself", and to rectify what they perceive as lies about Persia, perpetrated by a conspiracy of Arabs, Turks, and others "making story's that have no real sources" - despite reliable sources being cited. It's the undertone of neglect of wp:NDP with respect to national origin that concerns me the most. The majority of their edits have been unexplained changes in well-sourced material that results in the text directly contradicting the cited source. They're essentially a wp:spa with a wp:soapbox agenda. From what they've written, it seems to me they're rather deeply committed to this stance, and they don't wp:get the point about wp:npov, wp:reliable sources, wp:cite, and wp:original research. The effort to educate and clean up after them seems diproportionate to whatever positive contributions (so far none) they could make. On the other hand, they have responded and promised not to make any more disruptive edits, and to participate on talk pages. I suppose it would be possible to just close this for now and see what happens, but I rather doubt that anything good will come of it. Again, I'm not very familiar with what usually happens in these situations. --IamNotU (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

IamNotU - Yeah, I support your thoughts at the end. If they've responded and promised to improve and to participate on talk pages, and they haven't continued so far - I'd say that talking to the user was sufficient and we can probably close this for now and give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that they'll do so :-). Let me know if this is what you want to do, and I'll be happy to close this for now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oshwah, I don't object, go ahead and close it if you like... --IamNotU (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Gagibgd vs Csknowitall and No such user at Serbia men's national water polo team

Serbia men's national water polo team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Water polo at the Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) have been subject of a slow-motion (and not so slow recently) edit war, chiefly by Gagibgd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), since at least 2013. Here is his edit history on the article. Gagibgd persistently tries to include the records of Yugoslavia men's national water polo team, established in 1936, as an achievement of the Serbian team, without offering a single reference (the Serbian article is completely unreferenced). I tried to engage him at Talk:Serbia men's national water polo team#SFR Yugoslavian results, and Csknowitall at Talk:Water polo at the Summer Olympics to little avail. Only today he said anything on any talk page (mine is hardly the right place), citing the same document that I used to refute his claims. Anyway: this is admittedly a content dispute, but it can hardly be solved if he practically refuses to discuss the issue (or perhaps his English is insufficient to communicate): he has 0 (zero) contributions to Talk: namespace, and the only ones to User talk are in Serbian [15]. I'm at loss what to suggest... No such user (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Gagibgd turning up to revert this section is not a promising sign. @Gagibgd: Don't do that again. GoldenRing (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, @Gagibgd: blanked his own talk page now as well, in hopes that admins won't see the discussions. Csknowitall (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Csknowitall: or we assume that they blanked it because WP:BLANKING says...they can? Be mindful: They may well have blanked this because of inexperience. It was, after all, their first edit to WP space ever, in five years  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Although I agree that immediately filing a clearly retributory ANI isn't the best tactic either. (Now merged with this thread) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Yes of course he can, no problem, but seeing his very recent edit wars and also deleting this post about him once, made me think he blanked his own talk page for the same reasons, that he don't want to get into trouble. Csknowitall (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Csknowitall: Sorry, didn't know that my page is relevant to this issue. There is nothing to hide, No such user left me a note where he disagrees with my edits, and that's it. Gagibgd (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Serial Number 54129 - lets give others the benefit of the doubt and not jump to conclusions thinking that someone's edits are an attempt to hide information or cover anything up. It's not relevant and even if this were the intent, such information is never truly gone :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

No such user and Csknowitall constantly keep reverting edits about Serbia men's national water polo team and their results and medal tables based on no evidence. Serbia as a country, is widely considered as inheritor of Yugoslavia. This also counts for sports results. When Yugoslavia was breaking apart in 1992, all countries except Serbia and Montenegro requested to exit, and start from the beginning. Serbia and Montenegro (at that time known as FR Yugoslavia) was kept in SFR Yugoslavia, and was eventually renamed to FR Yugoslavia. FR Yugoslavia got legal continuity of SFR Yugoslavia, and that is a known fact. Even FINA, which is a main water polo organization in the world agrees with this, and here is evidence for that claim https://www.fina.org/sites/default/files/final_histofina_wp_2016_0.pdf. In football for example. FIFA considers Serbia as Yugoslavia inheritor, you can see that on the page Serbia national football team. So, how can one country be a successor of the other in some sports, or some competitions, and in some other not? That is just absurd.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagibgd (talk • contribs)

@Gagibgd: Again, you drag different federations into this. FIFA has nothing to do with water polo, so what they do with their own sport is up to them, and what FINA does is also up to them. You ask why one country can be successor in some sports, and in others not, well it's simple, it's up to the individual governing body on how they officially count medals and results. Some might give the medals to Serbia, and some don't, that's just the way it is. I also don't see why you drag UN into this, what exactly do they have to do with how sport federations count medals? Csknowitall (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gagibgd: All I'm asking is that you start discussing, preferably at Talk:Serbia men's national water polo team. This page is not the place for debating the water polo issues, but for getting administrators' attention; feel free to copy the above text there and I will be happy to address it. When there is a dispute, we're supposed to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which boldly includes "Discuss with the other party" as a step. We might not reach an agreement, but then there are other steps. (And plase sign using four tildes, ~~~~) No such user (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm seconding No such user's comment here to Gagibgd. This needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. Discuss and resolve the dispute properly, and please keep in mind that there is no such thing as "fast" or "slow" edit warring of any kind - if you're making repeated reverts to an article in a back-and-fourth manner with another user and in-place of proper dispute resolution protocol, you're engaging in edit warring. The "three-revert rule" is just a blight-line rule to help "define a line" where, if violated, will almost always be interpreted as edit warring and where action is justified in order to stop it. It is a definition of what "a classic case of edit warring" is - it does not define the line between what is and is not edit warring. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SPI-case

Lorstaking opened an SPI - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ApostleVonColorado - alleging that Ms Sarah Welch (MSW) and others were socks of the long-silent ApostleVonColorado (AVC). AVC was topic banned in 2012; MSW commenced editing in 2013 after that ban had expired. A great deal of evidence has been presented at this investigation. As a patrolling admin, having assessed this situation as best I could I eventually concluded that:

• Ms Sarah Welch, Lisa.davis and Mark.muesse are all the same person and as a result Lisa.davis and Mark.muesse were indef blocked and tagged as socks of Ms Sarah Welch (both have long since ceased editing.)
• Ms Sarah Welch was then blocked for one week “pending further investigation of the relationship between that account and AVC".

Having reached that conclusion various other editors weighed in and as a result the issue is posted here for wider community input. Why? In a nutshell:

• "There's no way AVC would be entitled to a clean start."
• MSW is not without her critics but is also an editor who has made a significant contribution, including a claimed 59 DYKs and 12 GAs.
• The behavioural evidence of AVC and MSW being the same person is considerable (although not perhaps 100% certain).
• Assuming them to be one and the same, to quote Lorstaking: "It's a deliberate violation of policy... MSW has abused multiple accounts to make significant edits on same articles for years. MSW had to stick to AVC. MSW was aware that editing as AVC would take no time to face another topic ban or indef block on AVC account. That's why MSW used new accounts to avoid scrutiny and engage in same disruption as AVC." In other words, policy suggests that MSW should receive an indef block and the individual be allowed to start editing again as AVC.
• Without wishing to trivialise the problem in any way, such an outcome may be considered harsh by some, even taking a dim view of some of MSW’s more controversial actions e.g. continuing to edit war with one or more editors that AVC also disagreed with.
• Some contributing editors at SPI suggested that, given the unusual nature of the case, that a discussion be opened here for wider input.

I will unblock Ms Sarah Welch to allow further comment to be made here by that editor. Ben MacDui 18:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just to address the clean start bit first: Clean Starts are able to be utilized by editors who have been problematic as long as they have recognized the issues and are not going to repeat them, and as long as the original account is not used. So I disagree with some of the comments that AVC was not entitled to a clean start. Everyone is entitled to a clean start when sanctions expire. Permission is not required. With the expectation under any new username that previous behavior is not repeated. As the other user's were created after the ban expired, and AVC never edited again, utilizing a clean start - ok, continuing to edit problematically in areas they were previously topic banned from - not ok. Is there evidence they have been problematic in the same topic area as their previous username? Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment I don't think that ANI is a good venue to discuss this. It could be village pump where we could ask changes to sock puppetry policy but right now as per WP:SOCK, the indef block is only solution to this problem. Topic banned editors are not allowed to WP:CLEANSTART unless they have declared the account or they are editing the totally different article, but Ms Sarah Welch was violating this clean start since their first edit. As evidenced on SPI, a few things are clear here:-

1. Ms Sarah Welch (MSW) created multiple accounts and was topic banned from all Caste articles for 6 months on ApostleVonColorado account on WP:ANI after filing a spurious complaint against Fowler&Fowler,[16] and it was obvious that the user would be subject to heavy scrutiny and the account would be topic banned again or indefinitely blocked given the continued problems with editing on same subject and continued WP:BATTLE mentality with same users (Fowler&Fowler in particular).
2. WP:SOCK: creating new account "to avoid detection" is a violation of sock puppetry.
3. MSW filed a spurious retaliatory SPI against me,[17] same thing that socks usually do when they realize that they are going to get blocked.[18][19] And also wikihounded my edits.
4. Given the many problems with the editing (edit warring, bludgeoning, misrepresentation of sources, etc.) of MSW as detailed by other editor[20], the indef block for sock puppetry seems clearly alright even though sock puppetry is not about good or bad edits, but only the abuse of multiple accounts which is highly evident here.

I am sure that we are not going to change policy on sock puppetry and unblock many accounts that have engaged in similar sock puppetry. Lorstaking (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block or site ban. Making my formal vote after enough discussion with Ms Sarah Welch, who was previously finding loopholes in WP:SOCK for justifying their sock puppetry,[21] has now completely rejected any wrongdoing and alleged Ben MacDui and I of making bad judgement.[22] Such deception is unexpected from someone who is walking on a thin ice. Lorstaking (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block I believe this is a violation of WP:CLEANSTART- over at the SPI, Lorstaking has presented evidence showing how MSW has continued AVC's feud against User:Fowler&fowler. The intent of WP:CLEANSTART is basically that "editors who change accounts under the terms of fresh start are seeking exactly that, a fresh start...avoids association with disputes or poor behaviors that you might have been involved with under your former account". Given that MSW is editing in exactly the same area their old account got topic banned from and are targeting the same editors, this isn't a clean start. We're also forgetting the two other socks here- Lisa.davis and Mark.muesse who were editing at the same time as MSW. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Now MSW has denied that link altogether, which is simply a barefaced lie, I now support an indef block. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: what exactly is the purpose of this discussion? I see here a proposal to block them, with the following rationale:

"Given the many problems with the editing (edit warring, bludgeoning, misrepresentation of sources, etc.) of MSW as detailed by other editor [23], the indef block for sock puppetry seems clearly alright even though sock puppetry is not about good or bad edits, but only the abuse of multiple accounts which is highly evident here."

With other words: 'block the account for sock-puppetry, because there are "many problems with the editing (edit warring, bludgeoning, misrepresentation of sources, etc.)". That's two different things: either you block someone because of sock-puppetry, or beacuse of problematic editing. But you don't block soemeone for sock-puppetry, because you are of the opinion that their editing is problematic. If you want to block someone for problematic editing (apart from sock-puppetry), then you have to discuss this alleged problematic editing, and make clear why you think their editing is problematic. And regarding this allegation of problematic editing: MSW has made significant and valuable contributions to the project. If they've been topic-banned one time before, with another account, but never been blocked with their present account, then it seems to me that they've learned, and improved their behavior. Don't mix up arfguments, and provide sound arguments for the allegation of problematic editing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

PS: regarding "Lorstaking has presented evidence showing how MSW has continued AVC's feud against User:Fowler&fowler", such an allegation needs more than the selected examples given by Lorstaking. Don't forget that there are more experienced editors on India-related articles, some of whom think highly of her, and didn't have the kind of problems with her Lorstaking is referring to. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Um, no, it doesn't matter who presents the diffs, but rather the content of the diffs, which I judge, as a completely involved editor in the India caste article sphere to show MSW continuing with AVC's agenda against Fowler&fowler, against the spirit of WP:CLEANSTART. More diffs are available on the SPI, but this isn't a point to be disputed. However, the point of whether MSW is a constructive editor, constructive enough that the past SOCKING can be ignored is, hence why I suggested taking this to AN. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Ben MacDui's suggestion seems to be that "policy suggests that MSW should receive an indef block and the individual be allowed to start editing again as AVC." That's different from blocking AVC/MSW altogether indef. There have been cases of abuse which were much more serious, and where nevertheless the editor in question did get a second chance. MSW is a valuable editor, I think; and I think I can speak with some authority, given my contributions to the project and the topic-area. So, openness about the accounts, block of all of them but one, and a severe warning should suffice. Though, personally, an explanation would also be welcome, and help to restore faith and trust. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Now that MSW's response has been already seen and it is highly problematic. Still, MSW will get another chance too just like everyone else, after getting indeffed for socking and spending some time off-Wikipedia realizing what they did wrong. Imposition of a topic ban upon return will make the request better, just like it happened with all those who got "second chance". Lorstaking (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This is a tricky case. I suggest a bit of WP:IAR might be needed. You're dealing with a long term, and overall valuable, albeit controversial, contributor. Policy probably demands indef, although you express (minor) doubt about the AVC connection. Perhaps a long block, but not indef, with it being quite clear that any further violation of policy would result in indef? That way you may keep a valuable contributor around, with no more policy violation. If you're right about the SPI thing, an indef block would probably just result in another account. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block Noone actually doublechecks MSW's extensive edits. MSW doesn't even understand that Brahman can be an alternative spelling of Brahmin. See here. When her own sources talk about "brahmans", brahmans refers to human beings. She doesn't understand any of this. I really question her WP:COMPETENCE. And with all due respect to my good friend Joshua Jonathan, English is not his first language and he doesn't doublecheck MSW's edits.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• This is actually a good point. I've tried to check some in the past and found it virtually impossible to come to the same paraphrase etc but I've mostly assumed that MSW has a better grasp of the technical terms than me (even when I have been very dubious, so perhaps AGF'ing too far). Plus I really could do without getting into a really long wrangling match of the type that Fowler&fowler has routinely had to suffer. - Sitush (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Just to say that that I have inter-acted with MSW a fair deal in recent months, on Indian art and architecture articles - Hindu temples mostly - I think she has only fairly recently moved to edit in that area. She is certainly a useful editor there, partly because she is good at clearing the thickets of dubious unreferenced or poorly referenced material that has accumulated on many temple articles. We have had our differences for sure, but she is a net positive. Without having often directly checked her use of sources (I usually have sources covering the same ground, but not always the same ones), I'd say her use of them is generally good, and neutral. She is certainly very insistent on referencing. If there are consistent problems here, it should be possible to produce examples. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for admitting you don't doublecheck her edits. In addition to the example I already provided, here is an example of her confusing a fictional discourse of the Buddha with actual history. Here is a rare admission that she confused a statement of a scholar with being a quote from the Bhagavad Gita. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I checked the link you gave; MSW made a propsal there for a textual change, including a reference. This was in response to your previous response, which said "You state that "dwells in all things and in whom all things dwell" is a direct quote of Krishna. This is false." What kind of wrongdoing do you see there, except for disagreeing with you? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

In her article edit, she said "dwells in all things and in whom all things dwell" was a quote from the Bhagavad Gita. The source didn't say anything like this. This is about WP:COMPETENCE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 07:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm the administrator who imposed the topic ban in 2012. I'm not hugely familiar with the history since then, but it seems the editing patterns which led to said topic ban haven't recurred. The block is reasonable, and should be allowed to run its course. After that there are no active sanctions, which is the, but any future sanction discussions should be properly cognizant of both this episode and what happened in 2012. There's enough potential upside and scrutiny that it'll be easy to reblock/reban as necessary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, scrutiny doesn't work with this editor. As documented by others, she doesn't listen to anyone. And again, noone actually checks the extensive edits she makes.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking in relative terms to 2012. If those more familiar with current history disagree, I wouldn't stand in the way of anything. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• My (limited) experience with Ms Sarah Welch is similar to that of Sitush. I'm not aware of the technicalities of wikipolicy here, but I agree with the principle that the meting out of sanctions on prolific contributors should be exercised with lenience. In this case however, I don't think that such favour should be extended without first undertaking a very careful and detailed examination of a sample of their content contributions. – Uanfala (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I did check some of her sources at Advaita Vedanta; although I think she has a certain pro-AV bias, the sources were accessible, and we could argue about various matters, and reach greements. As I said before, a block for disruptive editing needs a more thorough argumentation than a limited couple of examples from a total of 28.000 or so edits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Assuming that AVC has opened all these accounts after the expiration of their topic ban, the issues are whether AVC was entitled to a WP:CLEANSTART and whether MSW has continued the same kind of disruptive behaviour as AVC. Neither of these is clear to me. Bbb23 has stated that AVC was not entitled to a clean start. However, WP:CLEANSTART states, Any user in good standing who has no unexpired sanctions, and who is not being or about to be formally discussed for their conduct, may have a clean start. This seems to suggest that a CLEANSTART was permitted under the timeframe we are dealing with. Regarding the continuation of disruptive behaviour, I don't see that either. MSW has done considerable good work, winning the admiration of many of us, and has accumulated plenty of successful GA nominations. Granted that she clashed with Fowler&fowler, particularly at the cow-protection and cow-slaughter articles. That clash was quite unavoidable given their respective positions. I didn't see any of them particularly "picking a fight" for no reason. Vanamonde93 has mediated that discussion and I participated for part of it. None of us thought that there was disruptive behaviour from either side. So, frankly, I don't see a case for any action. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentation of WP:CLEANSTART which says, "However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized and connected to the old account. Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past bad behaviors is usually seen as evading scrutiny and may lead to additional sanctions." And "it is best to completely avoid old topic areas after a clean start. If you have a favorite topic that you wish to edit, it may be better to continue using the old account, clean up your behavior, and rebuild your reputation the hard way." Policy on clean start is completely opposite to what you think. Lorstaking (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

She seems to have managed quite ok until now without being recognized. Then she ran into you, who has had so much interaction with AVC that you instantly said, "aha, there he is!" In any case, nothing says that if she has been recognized, she should be blocked. We block people for abusing multiple accounts, typically by using them simultaneously, or for block evasion. AVC had a time-limited topic ban, which they sat out. At the end of that they were free to come back with full privileges. If they chose to come back with a new account with vastly improved behaviour, though that is not the choice I myself would make, I would regard it as passable. Not even Fowler&fowler, who has had major battles with both the parties, connected them to each other. His assessment was, as reported by Ben MacDui, AVC was "confrontational" whereas MSW was "coldly polite". That is the clearest demonstration that there was marked improvement of behaviour. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Your comment has only made my policy-based argument stronger. I can understand that anyone would lack any rational basis when they are making arguments against the policy that has been violated big time. You should better provide examples where the sock was exonerated because the person socked with multiple accounts after abandoning main account due to sanctions. People are always blocked after they are caught switching to a new account for editing same articles as the previous account. MSW created Lisa.davis in 2012 and never declared the account and edited same articles as these socks and AVC until this month. MSW is still not revealing the list of all accounts and claiming to be truly flawless and rid of socking which shows a massive amount of incompetence and deception. Fowler apparently regards MSW to be worse than AVC by saying, "I have not met such editors in a very long time, probably not since 2007".[24] MSW made Fowler recall the happenings of Caste article where AVC was most disruptive.[25] You are misrepresenting both Ben MacDui and Fowler, because according to Fowler, AVC was "overtly polite".[26] MSW continued same senseless battles by evading scrutiny. Then we also have other spurious reports made by MSW worse than the one that led topic ban on AVC. According to every bit of evidence, there has been no improvement, only deterioration in behavior. Lorstaking (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "According to every bit of evidence, there has been no improvement, only deterioration in behavior", you seem to be ignoring a lot of commentaries here, by longtime-editors who regard MSW a productive editor with valuable contributions to the project. Nevertheless, policies are clear (emphasis mine):

WP:INDEF: "An indefinite block is a block that does not have a definite (or fixed) duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion. As with all blocks, it is not a punishment. It is designed to prevent further disruption, and the desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and to stop problematic conduct in future. Indefinite does not mean infinite: an indefinitely blocked user may later be unblocked in appropriate circumstances."

The logical course here seems to be that MSW is being blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Lisa.davis. The accusations of disruptive editing are irrelevant for that decision, and only obscure the discussion. After being blocked, a request to be unblocked can be made, and eventually a request to continue editing as MSW (it may be wise to check if the password of this Lisa.davis account is still available?) In that discussion, arguments about alleged "disruptive editing" can be discussed. As I said before, I will support an unblock-request. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

MSW disagrees with you per own comments here, that Ben MacDui made false connection with Lisa.davis and "not provided evidence", that's why there is really no doubt that the behavior has only worsened and it continues. AVC is the actual sockmaster here, who used the same images that had been uploaded with his account Lisa.davis on same day, back in 2012 (see SPI). Second choice is Lisa.davis. All accounts are accessible, one has to log in into a Wikimedia project where they never logged in before and the account will be accessible in Wikipedia again. See Help talk:Logging in. Lorstaking (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support Block Per the evidence presented in SPI and comments here. I do believe they pick a fight and often takes a confrontational stand. We have in the past blocked socks, who have made very good articles, which we have deleted. We cannot and have not given SP a pass because they make good articles.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

If making good articles is not relevant for being blocked as a sock, then "pick a fight and often takes a confrontational stand" also isn't relevant for being blocked as a sock-puppeteer (it's only relevant when socks are being used for these fights). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, JJ. I respectfully disagree. If you re-read Ben MacDui's referral at the top, it is clear that MacDui is asking for community's input on whether MSW is a sock of AVC and whether it is a violation of cleanstart. So taking a confrontational stances similar to those of AVC would constitute both evidence of socking as well as violation of cleanstart. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Since I've been pinged, I feel duty-bound to comment here, but I haven't the time to evaluate the behavioral evidence. So I will proceed under the assumption that AVC and MSW are the same person, and if time proves me wrong, well and good.

  I've had significant interactions with MSW, including, as has been mentioned above, my trying to mediate a conflict between MSW and F&F. In this conflict, their behavior was not perfect, by any means; their attitude towards F&F, in particular, leaves something to be desired. Nonetheless, I do believe that the account MSW is fundamentally here to build an encyclopedia. Indeed, their behavior is far less of a problem than that of several other participants here, who really do require further community scrutiny.

  As to what to do now: to reiterate, MSW's current behavior may not be ideal, but isn't blockable. They are not, at the moment, abusing multiple accounts, and have clearly not done so for a while. I'm inclined to think that they were not entitled to a clean start; but blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. Is there any evidence that re-blocking would prevent any disruptive behavior? None that I can see. The most productive way out of this mess, therefore, is to clarify the rule around clean starts to MSW, formally warn them that this new account was a problem, and make it clear that any future miss-steps in this direction will be met harshly, as they've received plenty of warning. Vanamonde (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comments and proposal: I apologize for the tardy reply. To avoid creating a text wall, I will leave many of the comments above unanswered, just try to address some of the issues raised as I understand them, and propose possible solutions along the lines of some suggestions proposed above. My goal is to propose a way forward, a way that is constructive and in line with the aims of the project of building a free encyclopedia. I will then make some closing statements.

[1] There is a question about whether my contributions to Africa-space articles and Caste systems in Africa, during the Africa Destubathon Initiative, escaped scrutiny. That is not the case. Please review the talk and talk-archive pages of Oromo people with participation from Doug Weller (see archive 2 etc as well), Amhara people, Somali (see sections 7-10 and archives), and the nearly 80-100 articles I edited in the Africa-space. The scrutiny was intense, sources were checked, admins intervened, and one case ended up with the ARB-committee. The content I added to caste systems of Africa was predominantly copied from those articles, with a note in the edit summaries stating that the content is copied from Africa space articles ([27], [28] (an admin and I discussed this article, fwiw), [29], [30], etc). That is scrutinized content.

[2] I welcome further scrutiny. I propose Lorstaking or anyone interested to identify a list of articles that they believe may not have received scrutiny. I promise to collaborate with them, line by line, one scholarly source after another, in order to address any concerns and further improve those articles (but please do see the talk pages of the articles where that content was scrutinized and copied from; you may also wish to see my comments/cited sources on few other talk pages in 2016 and 2017, such as this, comments made before the SPI case was filed).

[3] There have been vague allegations made by Lorstaking on the SPI page about "disruption" by me. I request that Lorstaking should stop casting aspersions. If they believe disruption has occurred, they should be able to identify the article, specific edit diffs and explain the disruption caused. If they were to make such good faith effort, I promise I will work with them to review the scholarly sources in order to improve the articles.

[4] I attest that I do not have a sock or alternate account. I have only edited wikipedia from password protected networks in 2016, 2017 and 2018. I have never shared my wikipedia password with anyone, nor attempted to abuse wikipedia with sock accounts. Ben MacDui has spent a "long time" on this by his own statement. I do not want to spend my time or energy on this, nor of Ben or anyone else. That is not why I participate in wikipedia. My predominant interest remains in collaboratively contributing to the project, and contributing content that relies on peer-reviewed mainstream scholarly publications and equivalent reliable sources to the best of my abilities.

[5] I promise to continue using password protected networks in future, never create alt accounts. If I ever do create an alt account for reasons explicitly allowed by wikipedia policies, I promise to inform an admin first.

I am open to any additional constructive suggestions that will allow us to focus on the future and redirect our energies towards building an encyclopedia.

I thank Ben for temporarily lifting the ban so I could submit this reply. Now that I have done so, I accept one week, one month, one year or indefinite block if the community feels that wikipedia project and its aims would be best served by such an action. I promise to respect the decision, without contest, with love and compassionate respect. Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Please identify all previous accounts operated by you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Ms Sarah Welch: Your response has not addressed any of the issues or mistakes, it is only speaking of more problems. Do you know that this thread is not about what you contributed to African ethnicity articles? You had to reply to the concerns raised by editors regarding your edits on Indian articles. I don't think these editors have checked your edits to African ethnicity articles, however I should mention the link provided by Capitals00 on SPI, that you had filed a spurious ANI report[31] against Soupforone who participated in these African articles with you. Though your report was TLDR, there was no evidence of any misconduct, and same was the case with your report against Fowler&Fowler that you filed with ApostleVonColorado account.[32] Although this time you went far ahead with this spurious report by proposing sanctions against Soupforone and proposed siteban("indef-ban") for GabiloveAdol, but your proposal received no support.[33] Clearly there has been no improvement in your behavior, but deterioration.
• We have already observed how you "collaborate with them, line by line", given the mass bludgeoning on talk pages and bragging that other editor lack enough credibility because they don't have as many "edits" and/or they are "new" to Wikipedia[34][35] even after editing for months. Your proposal is exactly what standard practice are supposed to be, and you have failed to abide by them during your multiple innings. That's why your proposal is troublesome.
• Are you actually sure that I am "casting aspersions"? I had already provided diff to the problems that I have mentioned above, and the linked diff in turn links to dozens of assessment of your behavior. Do you really want an argument over that? You seem to be claiming that everyone is wrong and they need a specific argument with you to actually prove that you are causing disruption.
• I am not finding any reason for believing your claims that you never used any other accounts during 2016-2018. It seems that you have plans to create "alt account" and you "promise to inform an admin first". Seems like you still don't understand the policy on multiple accounts, or you are deliberately misleading. I am also not getting that why you are saying that you have been editing with "password protected networks" since 2016. It is suspicious and it indicates there's much more to know about your sock puppetry. No one has claimed that you used or may have used insecure networks during these 7 years. It is rather obvious that you have used more socks.
• Since your behavior has only worsened in these many years, it would be ignorant to think that you would improve overnight. Take some time off Wikipedia. I have routinely stopped editing Wikipedia after I felt that it is getting too much. I am also aware of the fact that you criticize inactivity and finds it suspicious, but that's an incorrect approach and you have to change it. Lorstaking (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23: None. The CU team is welcome to run a checkuser on me. If sockpuppetry is confirmed, please indef block me immediately. Of course, this is not a permission to anyone to disclose my personal identifying information and I request that my privacy be safeguarded per wikipedia policies. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Ben MacDui: In early January, when I last responded to the SPI case, there was only one accused. More accusations were added later. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: The case opened against you was difficult from the beginning. I had never heard of Lorstaking, and my limited interaction with you was administrative and was positive. However, some of your responses at the SPI were odd, more like a person who had socked and was trying to find loopholes in the policy or in other policies, e.g., CLEANSTART. Then Lorstaking added two more accounts, both of which, like AVC, had not edited for years, and MacDui made a finding that you operated those two accounts. At that point, MacDui had different options as to what to do. The course he chose was not what I would have picked. I would have blocked you indefinitely as a sock of Lisa.davis, the oldest account (MacDui never made a finding that you were a sock of AVC). It would have then become your burden, as it normally is in other cases, to request an unblock. Nonetheless, a couple of days after MacDui's one-week block, you posted your comments here. My interpretation of them was that you were implicitly acknowledging that you had other accounts in the past, but, again as in most cases, for you to continue editing here I asked you for an explicit admission and for a list of the previous accounts. Now, surprisingly, at least to me, you deny any socking. Usually, in these circumstances, one of two things can occur: a clerk or other administrator can do their own analysis of your and the other accounts' behavior, and either agree or disagree with MacDui. If they disagree, they should of course explain why. If that either doesn't happen or doesn't result in an unblock, you can then take the request to ArbCom. Unfortunately, at least from my perspective, this is playing out at ANI instead of your Talk page. Although some of the editors in this thread have touched on the socking issue, it's as much a review of whether your edits as MSW have been constructive or not, which, again, in my view, is only partly what this is all about. There's very little I can do about this any more. Until you posted your comments, I had intentionally not commented here, although I did point out some of the oddities to MacDui on his Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Please do the checkuser on me, please. Clear me or indef block me based on technical findings. I am clueless about checkuser, networks, IPs, etc. If the SPI team is not going to do a checkuser on me because of some wikipedia policy, please state so and confirm that technical evidence on this case will not be available. I will then respond to the rest. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: You are not in a position to dictate what should or shouldn't be done. If you have more to say in response "to the rest", do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23: In that case, I submit the following,

• I have answered your question above.
• In December 2017, when Lorstaking filed this SPI case, they had just around 500 edits, mostly minor in my view. Just like you, I had never heard of Lorstaking. I thought we were dealing with a newbie who did not understand the SPI process. I made mistakes in my initial assumptions and reply. My last response on the case was on January 8 2018 when the case was less complex than the one Ben MacDui finally reviewed in late January.
• A scan of Ben MacDui review efforts suggest that Ben prepared his initial case review notes in his sandbox and then transferred them. I will only comment on my account, not the rest of Ben's analysis. According to Ben, he took a long look and while he found evidence, he found no unequivocal link between AVC and me. I have read Ben's analysis of MM and I, LD and I. Ben has not provided evidence of "unequivocal link" for either.
• Ben may have, I believe, relied on misleading edit diffs, presented by Lorstaking to push the sock-POV. For example, [36] and [37] were alleged evidence. The truth is that there was a systematic attempt to plug POV such as "Hinduism is the eternal right way of life, the sanataria [sic] Dharma" and the Woodhead book across many wikipedia articles, over many weeks. Other editors and I undid these several times. This has nothing to do with socking. Every link that Lorstaking alleges as evidence of socking has a similar innocent explanation. Please look at my edits not in isolation, but across articles and over time. Please look at what content was removed, revised or restored by me, and whether it was reasonable under wikipedia's content policies and what the cited source states. We gather here to build an encyclopedia. Measure my edits and my actions based on that standard. (For comments on Capitals00's views, see my reply at 08:58 today on this ANI page.)
• I have suggested a proposal above to move forward and move on. I hope the reviewing admins will study the evidence, ask if the evidence is unequivocal, if there is an innocent explanation, and whether I have disrupted and abused wikipedia in any way. Then take action. If I can be of assistance in this process, please contact me by wikipedia email. I thank you and all who have commented above, on all sides of this matter. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Ms Sarah Welch: You either don't get it or you're being obtuse. MacDui found that you operated two accounts previously, Lisa.davis and Mark.muesse. MacDui never found that you operated AVC. You're wearing me out with your evasive comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Bbb23 has seen me before and before this SPI I had pinged Bbb23 for help on Tyler Durden SPI,[38] given that he is a busy CheckUser, I can understand that he has not recalled me, but you are being deceptive as usual with this baseless claim you are making today that you never heard of me, regardless of the fact that you participated in same disputes as me, much before this SPI.[39][40] With 500 edits I could expose your sockpuppetry but how come you (having over 28,000 edits and over 7 years of sock puppetry experience) still lack any WP:COMPETENCE? "I thought we were dealing with a newbie who did not understand the SPI process"? I think you mean me and Bbb23 were dealing with a deceptive sock like you who attempted to fabricate the evidence by claiming that you have no overlap with AVC, sock puppetry is not disruption, AVC was allowed clean start and many other misleading claims that you made.[41][42]
What this Dharma[43], Sikhism[44] diffs got anything to do with the concerns raised about your disruptive editing here?
You have made no proposal but barely highlighted what every editor is supposed to do, and that you can't be trusted at all with your deceptive behavior which is further evidenced by your fabrication below where you tried to hijack an ANI report made by a different user and before your spurious ANI report that did nothing. Don't you think that you are only giving us more reasons to get rid of you? Lorstaking (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: If you're denying that you operated Lisa.davis and Mark.muesse, which were judged by an admin at SPI to have been operated by you, then quite frankly given this bare faced lie, and the attempt to derail the discussion below, I now support an indef block. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser is not going to find any socks that you have abused more than more than 3 months ago. You will have to disclose all those accounts that you have abused for more than 7 years. You have been already told, but it is really hard to make you understand. Lorstaking (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Lorstaking: Once again you post a wall of text with distorted claims. Lets take just two of your edit diffs. This you allege is my "issue and mistake". The User:Trankhalya added to wikipedia's high traffic main article on Buddhism this forum-y nonsense / vandalism, along with unsourced content such as "In buddhism, can be seen as a way to fulfill others by spreading a good greed to our society". I reverted this and then posted a message on their talk page that this is inappropriate. You give this as an example of "my issue and mistake" on ANI board?!!! Now consider the second example. You agree with Capitals00 about the GabiloveAdol-EthiopianHabesha case related to Horn of Africa space articles. You allege this as an example of frivolous complaint by me. The case actually was supported by others, progressed further, ultimately led to a topic ban, the ban was appealed, and the admins denied the appeal. If Capitals00 and you are criticizing multiple editors and multiple admins for that topic ban, this is not the right thread to do so. Your other edit diffs are similarly misleading and misinformed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you still not done of falsely labeling other's comments as wall of text?[45] Per WP:WALLOFTEXT, there should be "with a mass of irrelevant kilobytes". Can you find any in my comment? You are making irrelevant comments on the conduct of Trankhalya, and ignoring the point that he was not a new editor, but an autoconfirmed user editing for months and already well aware of the policies. What about other examples? I am talking about the complaint that you had filed against GabiloveAdol and Soupforone,[46] not about the complaint that was filed by a different user regarding EthiopianHabesha, days before your frivolous one.[47][48] How much your "case was actually supported by others"? Was Soupforone sanctioned? Was GabiloveAdol sitebanned? Because that is what you expected and demanded but others found no misconduct and no one was sanctioned. Don't you think that people would be at least asking for a topic ban against you from filing any more complaints on ANI if you had filed it from ApostleVonColorado, or they would be seeking a topic ban on you from African articles just like the topic ban you had from caste after you had filed a complaint against Fowler on ANI? I am astonished that you are still defending such a "frivolous complaint". Lorstaking (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block - problematic editor who doesn't seem to get it, can't trust her. GiantSnowman 09:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block - I have inter-acted MSW in several articles and my experience was negative. MSW hates to admit any faults, contributes without having knowledge of the subject and frequently resorts to deliberate obfuscation. Alleged good contributions are not a free pass for socking and breaching trust. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• I see contributions in MSW's history that clearly improve the project. Per NOTBURO I have no problems with their participation. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Would you like to also share that how carefully have you checked those contributions? Because MSW can't even understand very basic policies, let alone understanding philosophical texts where MSW ends up misrepresenting the subject as discussed above. Lorstaking (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Site ban proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It was already noted here and also on the filer's talk page[49] that ANI is not a good venue for deciding the outcome of an SPI and we should abide by the standard practice and policies.

In this report, different opinions have been offered, most have supported indef block while some have suggested different measures for dealing with this disruption. Situation has changed since the comments from the concerning editor, Ms Sarah Welch (sock of ApostleVonColorado), claiming that they are truly flawless. This incident has rather confirmed the validity of the policy, that why multiple account abusers of this kind are indeffed.

We are here talking about an editor who is socking for over 7 years and had faced a topic ban after an extensive discussion on ANI in 2012.[50] Regardless of the fact that not even one editor doubted evidence of the sock puppetry, MSW is making efforts to claim that they have never socked. The outright rejection of sock puppetry has led some editors to support something harsher.[51][52] But it is clear now that nothing is going to change the behavior of MSW. MSW has made outrageous claims that I provided "misleading edit diffs", to "push the sock-POV", as the evidence of sock puppetry and the blocking admin "may have, I believe, relied on misleading edit diffs", and the admin "has not provided evidence of "unequivocal link" for either" WP:DUCK account.[53]
Bbb23 has said "you either don't get it or you're being obtuse",[54] above. But MSW has chosen to stand alone, claiming the opposite that no evidence of sock puppetry exists, not only here but also recently on their own talk page.

Such a deceptive approach has made me sure that a site ban is more suitable measure for this problem than wasting any more time. Hence, I am proposing site ban. Socks of ApostleVonColorado that are listed on the SPI would remain indeffed per standard practice and policies. The user can request unban from ApostleVonColorado after some time has elapsed, which is generally no less than 1 year.

• Support as proposer. Lorstaking (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• There is a lot of material above to digest, and I have not taken it all in, but I am slightly concerned about the statement "The behavioural evidence of AVC and MSW being the same person is considerable (although not perhaps 100% certain)" (emphasis added) as a basis for a site ban.

I should say that my past interactions with MSW have been good, and mostly in the Horn of Africa topic area, which is notoriously difficult, so perhaps I don't come to this with neutral eyes. However, I see the GabiloveAdol case mentioned above as evidence against MSW, but my recollection of that case was that GabiloveAdol started a frivolous SPI case against MSW (admins might want to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ms Sarah Welch - I don't remember the precise details). See also User talk:GabiloveAdol#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ms Sarah Welch. I don't know much about MSW's editing in other areas, but I have long suspected that there is something fishy going on when it comes to Horn of Africa articles, and MSW has been a victim, not a guilty party, of that in the past. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Please stick to the correct facts: MS is not "an editor who is socking for over 7 years"; as far as this SPI is concerned, she's been using three accounts for a couple of months a couple of years ago for a limitd number of edits, after which she sticked to one account. MSW denies the correctness of these findings; I think that Bbb23 has painted the right course in a situation like this. I'll support an unblock-request, given her contributions to the project. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - As mentioned in previous discussions, I don't see any abuse of multiple accounts, which is what we call "Sockpuppetry". I also believe that AVC was entitled to a WP:CLEANSTART after the expiry of their topic ban. I do not find it troubling that MSW has not admitted to her previous accounts because that is what CLEANSTART is all about. Given her high level of contributions in quality and quantity, MSW is a net positive to Wikipedia. I would wish her to remain. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose--Nah...We have tolerated much worse.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - grossly excessive, we should be focused on the content, not the contributor. Fish+Karate 09:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Extremely excessive, even if the short-term socking is provable. Ms Sarah Welch convincingly, in my opinion, fulfills the forgiving spirit, and quite possibly the letter of the law, of WP:Clean Start. While our interaction has been minimal or zero, I frequently see her edits on articles I watch relating to Indian religion. These are very difficult articles to keep free from drive-by editors adding unreferenced bias, opinion, local beliefs, or worse. Losing MSW would be a great loss to the quality of many articles. First Light (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re-analysis proposal

@Bbb23: if I understand you correctly, you are saying that:

• you would have blocked MSW as a sock of Lisa.davies;
• you would also have blocked Lisa.davies, for being a sock-puppeteer;
• now that the case has been taken to ANI, and MSW denies any connection to Lisa.davies and other accounts, they should nevertheless be blocked (but you're not the one who's going to do that now?);
• being blocked, another clerk or administrator can analyse the case again:

• if they disagree with MacDui, they explain why, and MSW might be unblocked;
• if they agree, MSW will still be blocked, and then MSW can take it to ArbCom with an unblock-request.

• alternately, being blocked, no clerk or administrator may be willing to make a second analysis, MSW remains blocked, and she can take it to ArbCom to request to be unblocked.

So, who's to judge now about the actions to be taken? Any administrator who comes along, and thinks this discussion has been going on long enough? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

PS: I'd like to suggest that this thread be closed; that another clerk or admin, with due experience with SPI-cases, re-evaluate the SPI-case in question; and that the standard-procedures for dealing with sock-puppetry are being followed. Any discussion about the quality of MSW's editing can be postponed until after such a re-evaluation. I'd also like to suggest that Lorstaking stops complaining on behalf of Fowler&fowler about the interactions between MSW and Fowler&fowler, and about hypothetical blocks for disruptive editing which have not happened so far on MSW's account. It's up to Fowler&fowler to make complaints about that; I'm sure he's perfectly capable to do so, if necessary. Let's keep the discussion focussed in due order on the relevant points. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to all for this input, which I have found helpful. I am now going to return to the SPI where I will communicate the conclusions I have reached. In other words, in answer to the above question I agree that the discussion has gone on long enough and I believe the onus is on me to conclude the case. If anyone finds the outcome unsatisfactory (and given the diverse opinions expressed it would be surprising if everyone was happy) then of course opprtunities exist for a re-evaluation. Ben MacDui 10:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Even though people are allowed to file report in behalf of others on here or other noticeboards, I have just mentioned disputes with Fowler as part of strong similarities with MSW and AVC, and MSW didn't used AVC anymore for obvious reasons. Talking about problems with the edits or importance as an editor was always irrelevant, but MSW still claims that problematic editing, not socking, should be the foundation of SPI. As for this discussion, it has run it's course. Lorstaking (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indonesian IP editing Indonesian badminton bios

User:Stvbastian made me aware of an IP editor geolocating to Jacarta (typically from the 114.124.*.* range), who edits biographies of Indonesian badminton players. Their connection is dynamic, and today they returned on 114.124.238.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but remains unresponsive when approached. One hallmark of their edits, among others, is to remove the tournament category color codes used by WP:BADMINTON. Articles edited today include:

• Kevin Sanjaya Sukamuljo
• Marcus Fernaldi Gideon
• Anggia Shitta Awanda
• Ni Ketut Mahadewi Istirani
• Melati Daeva Oktavianti
• Hanna Ramadini
• Fitriani

What is the best way to reduce the workload in this case? Semi-protection? Sam Sailor 13:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User returned on the same IP, continues the same editing pattern, and has been reported to AIV. Sam Sailor 14:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sam Sailor - The IP distribution for this network is a /16, and it appears that there are edits from this range that aren't just made to people that are current badminton players. It does make me lift a brow (albeit slightly) to see that most of the edits from this range have been made to BLPs in that region, but that's normal given the geo-location. The fact that the edits are mostly made to BLP articles is definitely not enough for me to suspect or connect anything nor justify that the entire range should be blocked - it's much much too wide and the potential for collateral damage is higher than I want to typically see. I think that you're doing the right things: reporting users to AIV that repeatedly disrupt these articles, and requesting the articles that are the subject of frequent and repeated vandalism to RFPP to be protected. Until I see more evidence and diffs from more IPs so that I can try and find a sub-range to block that isn't as large or at risk of causing collateral damage, I think that what we're doing now is plenty good. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

​Thank you, I appreciate your response. Sam Sailor 09:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Sam Sailor - You bet; always happy to lend a hand ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

User:MehrdadFR

Hello, check Special:Contributions/MehrdadFR and Special:Contributions/2.179.46.234 this user keeps adding false information and reverting other editors edits, see the history of Girl of Enghelab Street, My Stealthy Freedom, 2017–18 Iranian protests, White Wednesdays, sound like pro Iranian regime user. Mjbmr (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Mine information are not false, yours are. I sent you warning and you removed it two times from your talk page. Beside false accusations, you also engaged in name calling. --MehrdadFR (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Admin note FWIW, I just protected Girl of Enghelab Street. Both of them are way past WP:3RR. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Persepolis1400, User:Pincrete, User:Dr.K., User:Icewhiz, User:GTVM92, User:Chrissymad, User:Elph, User:SlowManifesto, User:Iranianson, User:Iranianson, please check ^. Mjbmr (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

He has changed 49.8% people are against compulsory to 2.2%, what a jerk, huh? it's still on the page, fully protected. Mjbmr (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Enough with the name-calling, Mjbmr. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Mjbmr, MehrdadFR: Okay... both of you... the repeated back-and-fourth reverts and edit warring performed on Girl of Enghelab Street is definitely what I (nor any administrator) do not want to see on the edit history of an article - especially between editors who have been here for more than two years and are extended confirmed. That's absolutely against policy and you two know better than that :-). Dlohcierekim was extremely generous for protecting the article instead of blocking each of you for edit warring. I normally try to do the same and make sure each user is warned first and has continued with the disruption before blocking, but not all administrators here are that forgiving. MehrdadFR says that his content isn't false and that Mjbmr's content is, Mjbmr says the opposite... The article's talk page is that way; please go there and discuss the dispute in the manner that you should be and come to a peaceful resolution between the two of you... please? :-)

And Mjbmr, no more of that name-calling, please... That's against Wikipedia's policies on making personal attacks, and it's really not needed... like, come on, what's the point of doing that? It's not contributing anything positive or constructive here... Thanks :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I encourage you to review his edits. Mjbmr (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Mjbmr - What in particular concerns you outside the article that you two were edit warring over? Can you provide diffs of exact changes? This will help me to understand what you're referring to exactly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah Can't you see the "history" of the article?, he has been editing out the "Background" section of the article which created by the user Persepolis1400, see this "diff":

he was changing:

"during the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi the hijab was non-compulsory and a personal decision", ref: "El Guindi, Fadwa (1999). Veil: Modesty, Privacy and Resistance. Oxford; New York: Berg Publishers; Bloomsbury Academic. p. 3, 13-16, 130, 174-176. ISBN 9781859739242."

to:

"the Western dress code has been violently imposed by Reza Shah during his Kashf-e hijab campaign, and under his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi wearing of veil was no longer an offence, but for his regime it became a significant hindrance to climbing the social ladder as it was considered a badge of backwardness"

which is not from the ref, also he was changing:

"Some Iranian women in that time period wore some sort of headscarf or chador.", ref: "Abrahamian, Ervand (2008). A History of Modern Iran. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 84, 94-95. ISBN 9780521528917."

to:

"Despite all legal pressures and obstacles, the largest proportion of Iranian women continued to wear headscarves or chadors"

which also is not from the reference, and the most important he was changing:

"In 2018, a government run survey dating back to 2014, was released by President Hassan Rouhani which showed that 49.8% of Iranians are against compulsory or mandatory hijab.", ref: nytimes.com and post-gazette.com

to:

"In 2018, a government run survey dating back to 2014, was released by President Hassan Rouhani which showed that 2.2% of Iranians are against wearing of headscarf.", ref: css.ir

as you can see he has changed "49.8%" to "2.2%", I read his reference, basically it shows the number of people against compulsory hijab raises each year and it has "49.2%" in table 1 and I don't see any "2.2%" which he is lying about the ref.

He also tried to add this mockery Mjbmr (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

user:JWthaMajestic

Please take a look at the "vanity fair" of a "writer, artist and animator" Jordann William Edwards. I have an impression this nonnotable turned Wikipedia into hosting service for his personal website. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Some excellent examples of things made up in school one day, now resting in the bitbucket. Next steps depend on whether he re-creates them I guess. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

NauticalMiles manually converting units, not reading talk page, no email

NauticalMiles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User appears to have made an account specifically for the purpose of doing unit conversions[55] but as in that diff seems to be prone to making errors (should be 7.5 miles not 7). I have tried to communicate on their talk page[56] about the {{convert}} template but they do not seem to be reading the talk page, and have no email registered, and have proceeded to do even more extensive conversions[57] which, as with the others, I have tried to clean up[58]. It is a bit tedious to have to go in behind them and do this correctly, and I am almost inclined to revert until they notice their talk page, but I'm not sure that is appropriate. What can be done about this? —DIYeditor (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

DIYeditor - I've added a message to NauticalMiles' user talk page asking him to use the template and to message me if he has trouble or needs help. I'm hoping that this is all that is needed in order to resolve your concerns. If you need anything else or if things escalate, don't hesitate to message me and let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Help on proper name of British International School of Washington

I'd appreciate more eyes on this. The school's website confirms this as the proper title. Someone is reverting and using a legal document (primary source) to claim otherwise. Thanks, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for one week so that the issue with the article title and the school's name can be discussed and worked out properly on the article's talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I changed it back to "British International School of Washington" since that is what the school's website and logo say. I left an edit summary encouraging talk page discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks Cullen328. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! 73.159.24.89 (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Fyunck(click)

I would like to bring attention to this user's actions. I made an edit yesterday to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver

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

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

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

Quack, quack, quack. After reverting their blanking of a talkpage section, I looked at their vandalism board report and then at your contribs. Whose sock are you, if you don't mind me asking? Heiro 03:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It's sad to me that so many people on Wikipedia focus only on the age of a user's account and not the arguments that they are putting forth. It's one of the reasons I've never created an account on here. I am not a sock puppet, and I'm here to discuss the article in question and the inappropriate actions a user has taken in retaliation for the reasoned edits I made to said article. Zerilous (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

How could you possibly know about MOS:PUFF, WP:WEASEL & for that matter, WP:ANI? GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

He's obviously not a new user. Yet he has a point, about Fyunck(click) adding uncited claims about Rod Laver being the greatest tennis player of all time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree. But they way they jumped in, then straight to ANI, and blanked all warnings added to their talkpage immediately seemed odd. Heiro 04:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

If so, then it's arguably valid, though kind of pointless: "some say he's the best" so by implication "some say he's not the best". Big deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no qualms about whether it's "some" or "many." When you look at the very highest echelon of tennis players such as Roger Federer or Serena Williams, you find those same statements. With so many sourced in the proper sections below I didn't see a need for more sourcing in the lead. And, sorry, but with his knowledge of wiki-protocol and the recent plethora of sockpuppets plaguing tennis articles right now, I don't trust this editor. He goes to immediate personal attacks on the Rod Laver talk page accusing me of harassment with improper disparaging headers, with a brand new account. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

One other thing. To be honest, if no article said this type of thing, I would have no problem with it. In fact I originally voted to curtail them but was trounced in that endeavor. They are a fact of wikipedia. And there are only tiny handful of tennis players that fit this description. Rod Laver is certainly one of them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

His complaints against you are totally unfounded. Thanks for the good editing. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

And then his topic headers and more personal attacks, as opposed to a helpful discussion on on the Rod Laver talk page, seem way out of bounds to me. I tried to change the header and he simply piled on. So I removed the entire item, and it was put back by another editor. That stuff upset me for sure. If he's not a sock or old disgruntled editor I've dealt with in the past, I would apologize for not trusting his motives. But that talk page post has to go. It is not furthering the betterment of the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I saw you put a SPI header on his user page, but you also have to open a case on the case page. As things stand now no check is occurring. --Tarage (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

An SPI won't do anything unless a recent previous sock can be identified. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

And to be honest, he doesn't quite fit the couple of socks we've been battling over the last couple weeks at Tennis Project. The main one being a million socks of User:Maggiefluffy But it's either that or another slightly older editor who was upset with me for something in the past. He was trying to dredge up old edits of mine too and doesn't like my edits on Laver or Federer... maybe a Rafael Nadal fan I got into an argument with? I can think of one from July 2017 who got blocked, I'm just not sure though... but my spider sense has been tingling since this new guy arrived on scene. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, I am not a sock puppet, and this entire conversation has nothing to do with the reason I made this request on the noticeboard to begin with. Fyunck(click) made an edit that was a clear violation of MOS:PUFF and WP:WEASEL. Looking at this past edits of other articles, it's clear he has a bias and is in violation of WP:NPOV. When I attempted to start a discussion on the article's Talk page, Fyunck(click) could not refute the evidence I brought forth about his violations of the Manual of Style, and he proceeded to get upset, threaten me, and delete the discussion on the Talk page. Zerilous (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Just noting Fyunck reported Zerilous at WP:AIV, and I rejected the report, as none of the edits made by Zerilous could reasonably be considered vandalism. I would suggest we should start by considering whether Zerilous has a point about that article being puffery and weaselly, in which case the edits were reasonable. Fish+Karate 11:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. How is it encyclopedic to report that "some" consider a person the greatest or worst or whatever at something? Let's stick to the facts and skip people's vague opinions. In particular, are any of the sources for the first sentence (not to mention the unsourced removed-and-readded-and-removed-and-readded sentence) scholars in the field, whether historians or scholars of sport? They all look like journalists, and they're all writing in news reports or other publications (e.g. this opinion and ticket-purchasing website) that get no peer review by real scholars. Stick to what's been published in reliable sources for this kind of field, such as academic journals or books from university presses. Nyttend (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend 100%. The article's content should speak for itself, we don't need vague statements or people's opinions to convolute an encyclopedic article. Zerilous (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It's obvious you're not new to Wikipedia. What other accounts or IP's have you edited under? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, it's disappointing that you would rather focus on the age of my account rather than the reasoned arguments I'm making. I'm not a sock puppet. I haven't edited any other articles. I'm here to discuss the edits made and actions taken by Fyunck(click). I've presented evidence that his edits and actions are a clear violation of MOS:PUFF, WP:WEASEL, and WP:NPOV. I agree with Fish and karate and Nyttend that we should be focusing on the points I'm brining up and the evidence supporting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerilous (talk • contribs) 18:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to dictate what the section focuses on. And your unwillingness to be straight with us only adds to suspicions about you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Unwillingness to be straight with you? I've stated multiple times that I am not a socket puppet and am not editing on another account. It doesn't get any more straight than that. I don't appreciate your attacks on my words and my character. I would very much like to get this thread back on topic and discuss whether or not Fyunck(click) edits and actions are a violation of MOS:PUFF and WP:WEASEL, and if his past editing of other articles I've described and listed demonstrates a violation of WP:NPOV. Zerilous (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Since your removal of the material has not been reverted [59] it would seem everyone agrees with that accessment and does not seem to be in contention. But since the only edits by your new account are concerning that article (and it's talk), Fyunck(click) and his talkpage, and this ANI, it does make one wonder why you created a new account specifically for this issue, since you know your way around enough presumably you have been here for awhile. Heiro 18:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The technical term is "avoiding scrutiny". Note that he admits to creating the account in order to challenge the other user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

One thing. About your statement "Since your removal of the material has not been reverted." I'm not sure what that means since he just reverted it. By that standard I added it a month ago and no one reverted it either, so it also must not have been in contention. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Since this ANI thread was started, judging by the comments above, it has gotten scrutiny and everyone who has opined so far seems to agree with the removal except for you. Heiro 18:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

That appears not to be the case from what I read here. And we also have a problem. Have you ever tried to get those statements removed from articles such as Federer or Williams or Pelé? I have, and I was crushed by overwhelming consensus that they stay. Once done I can move on right away and follow those decisions. I add to Laver and this happens. It's very confusing to say the least and I've been here a long time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Both accounts are edit-warring and could both be blocked. Which is probably why the OP made a new account - so when it gets blocked, he can go merrily back to editing under his real account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to say I was treating it as a sock or vandalism from the getgo, seeing it was new and all the hateful harassment/lie charges he was throwing about on talk pages (Which are still there by the way). I still have my suspicions. That account was created just for this, and it looks like it's worked so far because here we are. I'm going to back away for a few hours here because this is starting to make me upset that it could get this far with talk of blocking. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Friendly reminder, @Baseball Bugs and Heironymous Rowe: unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry are little more than meaningless personal attacks and, in this case, serve only as a distraction. Socking is dealt with based on specific evidence and without any direct confrontation. Swarm ♠ 22:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The user admits that he created the account in order to fight on the Rod Laver article. He also refuses to explain how he knows so much about Wikipedia behind-the-scenes stuff after being here only a couple of days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you Swarm ♠. To Baseball Bugs, at no point did I say I created this account in order to fight with anyone on anything. You have repeatedly attacked me and made false claims against me in this section. You refuse to discuss the issue I raised, which is that a user made an edit to an article that violated the Manual of Style, and when I pointed this out to said user, he proceeded to harass me and delete the discussion I started on the article's talk page. I urge you once again to please focus on the issues that I'm bringing up. If you'd like to open up a sock puppet investigation against me, by all means please do. I am not a sock puppet and have nothing to hide, and I have no problem discussing why I created my account. That discussion would take place in another location, as pointed out by Swarm ♠. The purpose of this section is to discuss the actions of Fyunck(click). He inserted claims into an article that violate MOS:PUFF and WP:WEASEL. His past edits to other articles demonstrate a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Zerilous (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Baseball Bugs: You miss the point. Even if this user is actually a sock, it's still counterproductive and disruptive to harass them about it here or anywhere else. If you have evidence, you should simply make a report. As I'm sure you know the standard for blocking suspected socks is really quite low. But a new account being "too knowledgable" is not considered evidence. If you don't have evidence, then keep your suspicions to yourself. Making a direct accusation of sockpuppetry without evidence is a great way to ensure that a sock will take care to not slip up and reveal any evidence to confirm the suspicion. What you're doing is literally counterproductive to fighting sockpuppetry. Best case scenario, the user is telling the truth about this being their first account, and you're thoroughly biting them. Swarm ♠ 00:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Portrait of King Sejong, once again

Once again, the painting by Kim Gi-chang (see https://namu.wiki/w/%EA%B9%80%EA%B8%B0%EC%B0%BD) has reappeared in the infobox of the Sejong the Great article. This portrait was one of the "portraits drawn by [order of] the state for the purpose of unifying and regulating the forms of statues and portraits, which were under the presidency (April 27, 1973) and the Prime Minister directive (March 5, 1973)", see https://namu.wiki/w/%ED%91%9C%EC%A4%80%EC%98%81%EC%A0%95. As a result, Kim Gi-chang, King Sejong (1397–1450) and Admiral Yi Sun-sin (1545–1598) have quite the same face, due probably to the fact that only Kim Gi-chang was available as a model at the time of the painting.

Moreover, according to http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database/term_details.aspx?bioId=139649, Kim Ki Chang (김기창 金基昶) lived 1913-2001, so that we have an obvious copivio. But we need infoboxes, don't we ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

YahwehSaves block evasion

User:YahwehSaves was blocked indef Oct 17, 2017 primarily for edits to the Audie Murphy articles. He also was frequently editing Matt Urban, Llewellyn Chilson and a number of military articles. His primary interest in the military articles is the medal count and service history. His last appeal for an unblock was denied Oct 22, 2017. It has been brought to my attention that IP 205.155.236.89 is YahwehSaves evading his block since Oct 28, 2017, and eventually this IP began making similar/identical edits on Matt Urban and Llewellyn Chilson. The IP has now done numerous edits to Garlin Murl Conner and other military articles. As of this morning, YahwehSaves is definitely evading his block with IP 75.79.31.20 (already known to be his IP). There are so many articles and edits by 205.155.236.89 since January, that it seemed to be the shorter path to report him here, rather than individual diffs at SPI. — Maile (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's a diff of him editing his own talk page. Seems fairly clear-cut.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Maile66 - I've blocked 205.155.236.89 for three months and blocked 75.79.31.20 for 36 hours for block evasion - are there edits or cleanup needed beyond the edits I see here from the IP that are latest revisions? How much needs fixing? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Garlin Murl Conner is on the watchlist of the article's creator, and I've already linked this thread to their talk page. Looking at the history of Llewellyn Chilson, it's being watched by Roam41 who is known to me as someone with more knowledge of the subject matter than I have. I placed a notice at WP Military History about soldier Henry Johnson, because I am not familiar with that. I'll check Chattanooga High School myself. While 75.79.31.20 seems to me to be a designated ISP account for a given user, 205.155.236.89 comes up as USC-Long Beach Chancellor's Office. So, thanks for your quick action. — Maile (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Maile66 - Sure, you bet. Let me know if you need my help with anything else and I'll be happy to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

As I have been a contributor to Henry Johnson, I looked it over and performed a restore to prior to this IP's edits. The only contributor in the middle of those edits was me. It also appears that inactive user Shade Ruff was another sock of YahwehSaves. Scr★pIron^IV 18:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I am familiar with both YahwehSaves and Shade Ruff. I have had several positive and polite interactions with the latter. Although he has a similar editing style, I don’t feel Shade Ruff is a sock of YahwehSaves. However, I do strongly agree that IP 205.155.236.89 is one. Roam41 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, 75.79.31.20 seems to have been used by YahwehSaves at least since 2012,[60] so I think the block needs to be more than 36 hours. I've blocked for six months. Bishonen | talk 18:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC).

No, on second thoughts I've blocked for a year. Compare Vanjagenije's 6-month block in 2016. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC).

Bishonen - Sounds good. Thanks for looking and for extending as needed :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Are these legitimate additions, or a sort of spam [61] to include a marginally notable organization in many bios? Thanks, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Good catch, 73.159.24.89. I think those additions are abuse of Wikipedia to promote this organization. We also have a terrible article about it, Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, which was just tagged by User:Pablomartinez as having notability issues and being written like an advertisement. Ain't that the truth. I'm going to shorten it drastically and think about taking it to AfD. Bishonen | talk 20:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC).

AFD? I'd have been tempted to just G11 it and called it good. Courcelles (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to take responsibility for that, seeing as it has been here since 2007. But don't let me stop you from giving in to temptation, Courcelles. Bishonen | talk 20:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC).

I'm relatively new (again) to wikipedia, but I'm glad to see someone else noticed the edits. Thanks for following up! PabloMartinez (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, PabloMartinez, thanks for tagging. Er, was the IP above also you? Courcelles has reverted the additions to the bios, and I have stubbed the article. (I'm a little worried that I may enjoy cutting puffery too much.) It seemed appropriate to remove the advert tag after that, but all the other tags still apply. Bishonen | talk 21:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC).

Bishonen, original IP is not mine! Cut away! - PabloMartinez (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I know, I just found out the IP isn't yours. They've posted on my page, because ANI is now semiprotected. (Curse you, Floquenbeam.) Bishonen | talk 21:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC).

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

"I love it when a plan comes together..."—Col. Floquen "Hannibal" Beam  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Hehe. Thank you Cullen328. 😈 Bishonen | talk 09:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC).

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

Serial hoaxer, redux

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

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

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

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

Philblue7

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

Clearly an SPA. No discussion on talk page.[62] What kind of sanction you think would be appropriate? It seems that he is gaming WP:3RR. Lorstaking (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

After this edit where they want programs in airing order they came on the air (rather than sensible alphabetical order), I think a reinforcement block is needed; we've had to remove schedules they've left too often. I'd like to hope mentoring helps but they only take the 'screaming at reverters in edit summaries' mode of communication and have never used the talk page for communication (and I'd hope they would have taken some time to comment here, but that hasn't happened). Nate • (chatter) 21:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Block maybe harsh. I think we need extended confirmed protection for some days, either he will move on or return to edit warring someday but since he has presented no argument that why we should support his side, I believe he will get over the consensus. Lorstaking (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

We had a semi-protect on the article a couple months back; they merely ceased editing/flirted with 3RR to keep out of trouble, and they're already long auto-confirmed. Nate • (chatter) 09:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

harsh douche-canoe?

Never encountered User:Jack Sebastian before so was very surprised to be called a "harsh douche-canoe" (whatever that is, it sounds awful) and to have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherise Haugen mocked with vulgarity. Attempts to deal with the user failed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cherise_Haugen and [63] He brought it to my talkpage User_talk:Legacypac#Yeah,_about_that... saying he could take me to ANi. Is this kind of attack against a good faith editor acceptable or is a block warranted? Legacypac (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No and no. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Harsh douche-canoe is pretty good -- either Twainesque or Hammett-esque, not sure which -- but it should really be reserved for a situation with more at stake. Wasted here. EEng 02:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

If you take douche as a shower (French) this would just be spraying down your canoe with a 10% vinegar solution. Not a very powerful insult.104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I was going for a Hunter S. Thompson vibe. I'm an asshole sometimes; I'm working on it. I kinda hate it when someone comes to a deletion discussion and gets treated as poorly as Legacypac did for PageantUpdater. Verbally tapping such a user on the shoulder often has no effect; they shrug it off. Give them a figurative shove and call them on their bad behavior often does the trick. Unfortunately, Legacypac only saw how someone being harsh to him affected them. Had they been nicer, the discussion would have simply continued. Maybe the user thinks they're being "edgy" and "kewl" instead of insensitive and rude. Politeness goes a long way to maintaining civil conversations. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Justice League, maybe you should have picked the correct side in your fight for Truth, Justice, and the American Way, since it's PageantUpdater with the long record of pitching fits when challenged. --Calton | Talk 06:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

{"Mr. Justice League" - that's pretty good!) I wasn't responding to PageantUpdater's behavior, which seemed fine in this instance. He was reasonable; Legacypac's approach was trout-worthy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't care that much about users here calling each other this and that, but don't talk about article subjects like you do in that AfD, Legacypac. "It is laughable to call this person an 'actress'" — really? That wasn't even in response to something, it was what you opened with. Consider that the person may well be watching their bio page, and therefore may see what you say about them in the AfD. Please think twice before you laugh at them. Bishonen | talk 11:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC).

I did NOT laugh at the subject rather I rejected the claim, in Wikipedia voice, that the subject is an "actress" for what the source calls "one small acting role in the Michael J. Fox and Joan Jett movie "Light of Day."" There is a difference between doing something little bit once and being labeled a professional by Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not what I was talking about, Legacypac. Not even slightly. It's the way you put it. You said it's laughable to call her an actress. Is my point clearer if I say "Please think twice before you sneer at living people"? Just stop digging and try to "reject claims" a little more sensitively. The "subject" is an actual woman. What if she was your sister? Bishonen | talk 12:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC).

My female reletives are not actresses or models either and if wikipedia claimed they were it would be laughable too. Nice you "don't care" about direct attacks on living people who edit, only imagined slights against subjects who may or may not be watching. How would you feel if random editors started insulting you? Legacypac (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Kind of the point, Legacypac: how do you think the subject of the article feels about you insulting her? How would her daughters feel, reading that? How should PageantUpdater feel about you snidely dismissing his polite remarks? Dude, please begin to get the point. You have to think about shit that affects others, not just yourself. Think before you edit, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Aside: I find it bloody irritating that putting out one ghostwritten memoir immediately leads to "author" being added to every "celebrity"'s Wikipedia biography, and putting ten bucks in a charity pot adds "philanthropist", and so on. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Me too. Part of the New Normal in the Realm of False Equivalence. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

User:PageantUpdater has not been treated rudely, but is making comments on AfDs that are building toward a topic ban. The real tragedy is the fancruft fans that insist on making pages for private low profile individuals that include guesswork and unsourced nonsense. The ghits for one of the ones I researched yesterday did not even cover a page of results, with the top one being her facebook profile with 88 followers and the second one her twitter handle. The rest were the Wikipedia page, related list pages and Wiki mirrors. Low Profile in every way. We are invading her privacy by working on the page. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to say, that is the first time I have ever heard - as a reason to delete an article - that we were invading someone's privacy by keeping it. Inventive.

However, it isn't the first time I have heard someone throw shade at an article because they they just didn't think it was worth their time. Brother (or sister- I am not sure how you gender-equate), I have seen fancruft before, and the article isn't it. You earn yourself no points by continuing to throw shit at the article, like some ill-tempered chimp. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Lol a topic ban? Really? For one of the only editors interested in the topic who has spent hours improving and referencing articles? I even applied for a Newspapers.com account purely for the ability to be able to reference these articles properly. Well I guess that's one way for you and others like you to fulfil your aim of purging Wikipedia from pageant-related articles forever. Dude, I'm not the problem. The hundreds of throwaway accounts vandalising these articles, adding fancruft and totally disregarding policies, guidelines and the MOS that I and a few others fight on a daily basis are your problem. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Kapoor2013

User:Kapoor2013 (talk) has repeatedly moved ([64]) Draft:Stree (2018 film) from the draft space to the main space, ignoring the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Dinesh Vijan film (and an explicit warning and explanation from me at [65]), which decided that the article be kept as a draft until it can satisfy WP:NFILM criteria. This is addition to the various warnings about disruptive editing, copyright violation, and vandalism that Kapoor has accrued on his talk page. Considering this behavior has continued for over a month, I am beginning to suspect that this editor is not here to cooperate in the building of Wikipedia and is at the very least unwilling to heed consensus. Requesting action be taken. SamHolt6 (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive tagging, editing and insulting by Dennis Bratland

This user has been placing spurious tags on the Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster‎ article. They were deleted by two users, but he keeps replacing them.

• [66]
• [67]

Tags removed justly by 2 editors: [68], [69]

Tags reinstroduced by Dennis B: [70]

Dennis keeps introducing a poor-quality opinion article from "Futurism" alerting that the car may cause a Kessler syndrome, but the car is not even in Earth orbit to do that. [71].

I explained to him repeatedly Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster#Car is not in Earth orbit but in heliocentric orbit that the car is no longer in Earth orbit, so it does not form part of "Earth orbit junk", but cosmic junk (or Solar System Junk) so it is not falling on Earth. He posts long messages evading the fact and insisting that he has to introduce what amounts to an alternative view, which is in fact a FRINGE view.

He placed a 3RR warning in my talk page and refuses to acknowledge the car is no longer in Earth Orbit so it cannot be "Earth orbit junk" or cause a Kessler cascade. User talk:BatteryIncluded#February 2018.

After I added more references to the effect that the car is Solar System junk (not Earth junk), he called me "drunk".User talk:BatteryIncluded#February 2018.

He is simply disruptive, and insulting. And I am out of ideas on how to explain to him that a single fringe report (on an object that is not even there) has no place. Thanks BatteryIncluded (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This person has been editing since 2006 yet they are offended that they got a 3rr warning after making 3 reverts in a row? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Deleting spurious tags and alarmist and ridiculous cheap sources is expected under any circumstance. Your obtuse behavior and insults are not. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You’ve come to ANI to complain about behavior that is identical to your own. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The article is now fully protected. The proper place to take this discussion is right here - You two need to properly discuss the content issue and which tags belong and don't belong, and come to an agreement. When you two have done so, let me know so that I can remove the gold lock from the front gate. C'mon... look past the frustration and work together and sort this out... okay? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The dispute over mentioning fears of space collision was resolved when BatteryIncluded added some other source to represent that point of view. I'm not particularly about who we cite for that, only that we give due weight to those who have those concerns. I started an RfC to resolve the dispute over integrating the media reaction. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, BatteryIncluded: So... this means that I can unprotect the page now, right? And no more edit warring is going to happen there? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis is still warring in the talk page with other editors. Id say another week or two. Thanks. BatteryIncluded

"Replying" to other editors is now "warring"? Talking it out is how we avoid edit warring. At some point BatteryIncluded's bizarre accusations are going to have to come back and bite him. I'm still wondering if he's going to go on harassing me with his demand to acknowledge that 'the car is not orbiting the Earth.' No matter how many times I've answered yes, he keeps coming back and haranguing me with the same question. When he pasted a duplicate copy of the same text and citations into the article, and I tried twice to inform him of his error (without reverting him), he continued to miss the point, and instead go off on tangential attacks. There's a competence issue here that should be dealt with. He's going to go right back to the article and attack other editors because he fails to comprehend the basic meaning English words. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I think you should unlock the page; there are other editors who want to work on contents, independently of the dispute between Bratland and Battery. If those two can't come to an agreement peacefully, then block them, not the article. — JFG ^talk 07:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

JFG - I agree; here you go -  Done.~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks! — JFG ^talk 07:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Slightly dodgy block?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all. I was going through the block list (I had been linked there via an old RFC, but that's irrelevant) and I saw this block: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/LmaololXD. The user made one edit (for which he was already warned by two users) and was then given an indefinite block for the one edit (which did not seem like pure trolling anyway). Perhaps it should just be a 24 hour block at most. Branchofpine, Have a chat, My edits 10:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Their edit was to Stephen, and an IP had just been blocked for making the exact same edits. Add to it the clearly NOTHERE username, looks like a good block to me--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, good block. We do block vandalism-only accounts indefinitely after just a few edits, Branchofpine. Or, as in this case, after just one, which was an attempt to publish something about a real person, which is always serious. (I really don't understand how you can think it's not pure trolling. It's the bad kind of trolling.) The idea, at least the way I've always taken it, is that it's better for the user (the person), after maturing or whatever — after finding that trolling/vandalism isn't the way to go — to create a new Wikipedia account and start afresh with a clean block log. That way they're discouraged from trailing the record of their childish vandalism with them for ever, in the form of a 24-hour block in the block log. This was typically childish vandalism, and I'd be surprised if the user isn't in fact a schoolchild talking about a couple of classmates. A very common thing, and yes, they're blocked. Bishonen | talk 13:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC).

@Branchofpine: I find it very odd that you would be "going through the block list", but, putting that aside, you should have notified the blocking administrator, Oshwah, of this thread. I have done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Context. GMG^talk 13:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I messed up. Please can you close this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Branchofpine (talk • contribs) 14:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I know this is closed now, but yes - I blocked the account after their singular edit because of the clear pattern of vandalism from the IP address just minutes prior... it was the same person and they were clearly making that account just so they could continue with their shenanigans. With this in mind, that account was just going to be used as a VOA throwaway, so yeah - I blocked it. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Darwinek and BLPs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user, who is also an admin, does not seem to think there's an issue with adding unsourced content to BLP articles. I've brought this to their attention twice before (Dec, Jan). However, they continue to add unsourced information to BLP articles such as this, this and this edit. I thought it was pretty clear that anything added to a BLP MUST be sourced, no matter how small a detail? I'd be grateful if someone could take it up with this editor, as I've tried, but they chose not to listen. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts - Generally, yes - you do want to reference content like the addition of birthdays and birth places to a reliable source in BLP's - for sure. It may not have to be cited exactly right there and next to that exact content if the reference is repeatedly cited in multiple locations and places within the article, but you should have a reference provided in the article and cited somewhere that verifies content being added. Reading through a BLP and verifying that content is supported by a reference somewhere on the page is a common task for editors to perform. It's absolutely reasonable for an editor to ask for a reference to be pointed out or provided to verify any BLP content, and to remove that content from the article until one is provided. WP:BURDEN is the exact policy to invoke here, in that "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Having clarified and paraphrased how that works here, are you sure that Darwinek has been adding content to BLPs that's completely referenced to a reliable source from the article at all? Is it possible that it was already cited or referenced on the article somewhere else and a ref link just wasn't placed right next to the content in question? I'm just wondering if this might be a simple case of confusion with "when to reference" vs "when to cite and link" :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: - Darwinek is simply adding unreferenced info to BLPs. This was the original version of one of the latest articles in question. The one source to the 2018 Winter Olympic page makes no reference to her hometown that Darwinek added here. I removed it, only for moments latter for Darwinek to source it. At best this is lazy, and at worst, it's disruptive. But that's what he's been doing for some time. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP says all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; Is Groningen as the birthplace really likely to be challenged? I am not really surprised that Lugnuts is not familiar with our policies but still aggressively pushes his vision.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I agree with Lugnuts. Editors should not be adding unsourced biographical data to BLPs just because it might be verifiable. Birthplaces, DOBs, and other similar information should be sourced with the addition/change. For an admin not to do this is surprising and not constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Whereas I fully agree that this is a best practice to reference all the data which we have in BLPs, I do not see how it is absolutely necessary to immediately reference the PoB in a BLP which will clearly we worked on further in the same days, which is not controversial, and which certainly will be references (all Olympic athletes quickly get links to their sports federations which provide the bios). And all of this on a scale of two hours. If it does not get references in say in a week, and the user clearly ignores the request, it might become a ANI case.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 as I stated in my initial response above - biological data such as a BLP's birthdate and age, weight, height, legal name, relatives, etc - are absolutely things I'd expect to be referenced to a reliable source from the BLP article, and I would expect to be talked to or messaged if I were to add such content to a BLP and without providing one if none exists - that feels like common sense to me taking into account our BLP policy and how strictly we scrutinize such articles. If someone challenges the addition of such content to them (as what's clearly been happening here), then one must be provided. It's acceptable (and somewhat expected) for editors to make mistakes - things happen and nobody's perfect. But making the same mistake repeatedly and over a period of time? - and especially given the user's tenure, user rights, and the repeated messages and concerns expressed? That does cause me a little bit of concerns as well (as Bbb23 stated above)... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

But the period of time is two hours, right? I think things would look differently if this is a recurring pattern. And, again, in BLPs of Olympians all these things together are typically referenced to just one page, which is always added pretty soon after the creation of an article. Two hours might be just a part of the workflow - adding PoB first and the link second, or smth like this. WP:BLP allows for this workflow.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You're right, Ymblanter - it is a small period of time to grow concerns over, but I just feel that such references should be provided from the get-go when you add this stuff in the first place. Surely, you ("you", meaning the editor in general) pulled the information from somewhere, right? So reference it :-). But yes, I should clarify that when I say that I'm "concerned", I'm saying that what seems to be occurring here is bad practice that I generally wouldn't do :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I agree this is the best practice, and I in any case try to reference such things if not always in the same edit then at least immediately afterwards. However, we are talking about editing articles which are likely to be heavily edited (Olympic athletes at the day of competition). It is not always easy (and not always a good idea) to do everything in one edit due to heavy conflicts. Anyway, what I am really concerned with is that Darwinek so far did not respond here explaining their vision of the problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I too would like to hear from Darwinek and for him to respond here with his side of the issues and concerns - it would help so that I can weigh both inputs here and offer help so that this can be resolved :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Good afternoon everyone. I completely agree that sources have to be added to BLPs, as this is one of our standard WP policies. As you can see from my edit history, I am lately making dozens to hundreds small edits per day. Sometimes I just forget to add the source for the person's birthplace. It is not an excuse though, and I agree I should be adding it to any article on BLP, whenever new content is added. On a side note though, I am afraid that I am being singled out by User:Lugnuts as the articles he is referring to were created by him. Last month I had a discussion with him and emphasized that WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN and WP:AGF are our core policies as well. - Darwinek (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Perfect! Sounds like a reasonable resolution to me - Darwinek understands the concerns and says that he'll take note and make sure that he includes the references alongside the content he adds piece-by-piece. As far as the concerns regarding Lugnuts: I'll address that in the closing statement. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"Sometimes I just forget to add the source for the person's birthplace" - I'm sorry, but that is not acceptable. I just forget? Even after being told about it on multiple occasions? I'm pretty sure if you weren't an admin, you would have been blocked for at least a 24hr period for this before now, as I've seen that happen to other editors. I have a feeling we'll be back here in the future to discuss this issue with Darwinek again. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I would not have blocked anyone for 24 hours in this ANI situation, and Darwinek's user rights make absolutely no difference to me. If he was being a prick to someone, I'd block him just like I'd block anyone else for doing the same... and I expect that any admin would do the same for me - and not give me any special treatment simply because I have a mop. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The place of birth could very well be challenged - I'm surprised Ymblanter has to ask this. Although he too thinks unsourced BLPs are OK. It fails WP:V. What's even more puzzling is that Darwinek CAN source BLPs in the same vein, as they did so yesterday! As I've said, this has been raised with the user before, but has dismissed it, hence why I've brought it here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Great that you found my edit which you were happy to bring to ANI and demonstrate that I am an idiot, but I put {{inuse}} in the article in the very same edit and continued edited it - if I would not suffer from an edit conflict, it would be sourced a minute later by me. I do not see any issues here.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts, let's not make rebuttals and return-arguments by waving diffs at Ymblanter and questioning his edits, please. Let's keep this ANI on-topic and discuss the concerns at-hand, which is what you stated in your initial statement :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Will do, Oshwah. I should not have reacted to Ymblanter's personal attack, above. I'd really like to hear from Darwinek now. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts - Cool deal :-). I'm not trying to wave fingers or say "stop it - it's your fault or anything" - I just want to make sure that we stay on track and that we don't let things get this ANI discussion off on a wild or ridiculous tangent. We've both seen all-too-often how ANI discussions can completely blow up and turn into a poop-throwing war when people start smearing one another with personal pinches and prods in their replies ;-). That goes for you too, Mister! :-P

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GLAM / WIR / COI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been talking to Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) and Jytdog about their ongoing battle. I need some help to stop this ending up at ArbCom.

Consider for example this edit: [72] - this refers to [73] as a declaration of WP:PAID.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uninvolved discussion

Clarify: Do professional editors have to disclose they're professional editors? GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to "professional" editors like editors who edit as their profession / to make a living? Or professionals in employment who happen to also edit Wikiepdia? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Editors who may be getting paid to edit articles of interest, by their employer(s). GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a sort of hierarchy. Employees of a company are not "paid editors" in the sense we'd understand it, but they have a COI. PR companies paid to buff up an article, they are paid editors, obviously, and the same would apply to people in a company paid to edit Wikipedia specifically. But Wikipedians-in-residence? That's much harder. They are usually Wikipedians first, placed in an organisation through a semi-official collaboration. It is not at all obvious how that should e treated. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

As a trustee of WMUK, I am acutely aware of the importance not only of avoiding COI, but of avoiding even the appearance of COI. Nevertheless, having been involved in the creation and review of several Wikimedian-in-Residence posts, I have to say that it is incredibly rare for a WiR to be asked to edit a specific article. Most often, their work will involve training uninvolved editors to edit articles (often related to the topic area of the employing institute), and in organising and making available on a Wikipedia-compatible basis the resources of the organisation. There really is no COI there, and it's a mistake to view WiRs as different from any other editor who works for a living. --RexxS (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I can believe this. The most baffling thing for me is that while Andy feels his integrity is being questioned and lies are being told, as far as I can see, there is no intent to do that. We need some kind of ombudsman or honest broker to handle this, because there are well-founded questions over what in-residence programmes actually mean in terms of edits and subjects. Most of this could be cleared up over a Wikipint, IMO, but it needs a calm, neutral venue for discussing it. Calm and neutral. Exactly what ANI is not... Guy (Help!) 17:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel those things; I have evidence of them; some of which I have already provided to you; and on various relevant talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh Andy, you really are making this hard. No you don't have evidence for those claims. You have evidence for the things that happened, and you have a perspective on how they look to you, and that perspective is legitimate, but, crucially, other interpretations are also legitimate, and reasonable people can and will differ. Do you really not see this at all? Guy (Help!) 17:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You make allegations about me, and then criticise me for refuting them. Here is Jytdog brazenly stating that I was paid on behalf of an article subject; a complete and utter lie (as evidenced by the fact Jytdog removed the claim when challenged). That is evidence which I had already presented to you off-wiki. And here is Jytdog smearing me as "a serial WiR who continually adds promotional content about the organizations paying you". That's not a "legitimate interpretation"; it is a complete and utter falsehood, presented as an assertion of fact. With no evidence. But with intent. You owe me an apology. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, POTW, listen to what Guy is telling you and learn to pick your battles. I agree that Jytdog is overreacting here, but finding you promoting your various employers is literally just a case of going to User:Pigsonthewing#Interests, picking an entry at random and looking for your name in the history. (This was the very first one I looked at; are you really denying I won't find similar results with the others?) ‑ Iridescent 19:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I listened, And I heard Guy telling me I haven't been lied about or smeared. The four year old edit you cite was made in accordance with the then-current policies in Wikipedia; and added images, coordinates, citations, categories and, yes, external links to an existing stub. The article has since been edited by six uninvolved editors (not counting bots), none of whom have seen fit to remove any of the content I added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain several times, Andy, "smearing" implies deliberate attempts to impugn those you know do not deserve it and "lying" means deliberate and conscious falsehood. That is not the case here. Jytdog has a specific perspective. He has made some unquestionably intemperate statements based on that perspective. But he is not the only one with whom you are butting heads on this, and it is absolutely not as clear cut as you make out. Leave Jytdog alone and do not comment on him. He has said a thing you find grossly offensive, and pretty much everyone here understands why you od, and I doubt many of us disagree. Call it crass and you will have close to unanimous support. Call it lies and smears and you will get eyerolls so hard we will all be looking behind us. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

We can't conflate that Jytdog meant well with whether how he went about meaning well was unfair and damaging to another editor. And if an editor has been dropped in a hole we can expect that editor to try and dig himself out especially on Wikipedia where reputations are made or lost in single cases. Jytdog admits he can be a fanatic about COI and one understands the impetus for that. But I'd suggest that doesn't excuse damaging another person's reputations as has happened here. I'm not sure what the answer is but maybe the beginning is clarification.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC))

Both Jytdog and Andy have previous, and you have previous with Jytdog. The admin community is not daft, we are capable of reading between lines, and we are certainly capable of distinguishing genuinely helpful commentary from that which serves to exact revenge for past disputes. Just so you know. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Per the terms of use, anyone who is paid to edit Wikipedia needs to disclose this. The WMF's official FAQ on paid editing disclosure includes GLAM and WIR paid editing as an example that needs to be disclosed, though only when explicitly paid to edit Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 1:05 pm, Today (UTC−5)

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

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

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

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

Involved discussion

The above shows - as I was explaining to you off-wiki while you were, unbeknown to me, writing it - that you have no grasp of the locus of the dispute between Jytdog and I, which is about the use of {{COI}} on articles where there is no discussion as to the supposed COI issue on the relevant talk page. You continued to insist that the core of the matter was GLAM editing, despite my telling you more than once that it is not (and despite his attempt to smear me as a conflicted paid editor in the link you give, which he retracted after being challenged, Jytdog has also said as much). Jytdog is simply attempting to use my involvement in GLAM work as a means to silence me in that unrelated dispute, as was plainly apparent - and refuted - in the ANI case which you recently closed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point re the law of holes, Andy. Your downfall here will be the absolute refusal to accept any possibility of good faith on Jytdog's part. I think you are both doing your best, but I can't stop you if you want to point the car at the cliff and put your foot down. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks, Guy for starting this discussion. I'm not sure this is the best venue, but perhaps there is value in flagging up these issues for administrators' attention, even if a specific remedy finally eludes us.

Let me say that although I am firmly opposed on principle to any editing for hire, I am in general agreement with Jytdog on the following points:

1. Editors who are doing a specific piece of paid editing work should disclose both on their user page and on the affected article that they are being paid to make those edits.
2. Editors ought to avoid directly editing an article about any organisation where they are employed, or have any other financial interest. Or at the very worst, they should restrict themselves to making absolutely uncontroversial edits (i.e. the sort that can be legitimately marked as 'minor').

My opinion differs from that of Jytdog on the following points:

1. Everybody who is employed has a COI with respect to their employer (including WiRs and GLAM employees), but they do not automatically have a COI concerning anything one step or more removed. For example:
   • An editor who works at the Royal Society of Chemistry has a COI concerning the RSC. In general, they do not have a COI concerning the BLP of the President of the RSC, and may well have access to the best sources to improve that article. However, if they are paid to specifically work on that article, then a COI exists and they should restrict themselves to the talk page.
   • An editor who works as a researcher at the University of Wessex Medical School has a COI concerning the University of Wessex. In general, they do not have a COI concerning research done at UoWMS by other researchers, nor do they have a COI concerning BLPs of eminent alumni (unless specifically paid to edit those particular articles).
2. Everybody who is employed, whose employer has an article, should consider noting their employment as a matter of courtesy to fellow editors. However, that should not override an editors right to privacy: it may not be possible to confirm one's employment in a small, locally-based company without outing oneself.
3. Everybody should be allowed to participate in the normal processes of creating and revising policies and guidelines. Conflicted editors must disclose, but that should not be a bar from participation, either by editing or debating. The community is mature enough to entertain opinions from everybody, and creating a "second class" of editors is a slippery slope we should not be going down. Even more importantly, an unfounded accusation of COI should never be an acceptable reason to disbar an innocent editor from participation. Misuse of such a potential loophole needs to be carefully prevented.
4. As a matter of principle, GLAM editors, WiRs and those employed in areas broadly related to our own mission should not be singled out as different from any other editor who has paid employment. They should not directly edit the article on their employer (barring minor edits), but should not continually have to defend their editing on other topics from baseless accusations of COI. Editors who make those sort of accusations should not be exempt from our policies on harassment and personal attacks.

I'd be happy to see Andy and Jytdog kept apart, preferably voluntarily or compulsorily if needed. I'd be more than pleased to see uninvolved administrators review the behaviour (and I include my own) at Template Talk:COI. I would also value uninvolved editors' views on whether it is acceptable for a third-party to "weaponise" {{Connected contributor}} and {{COI editnotice}} tags as was done at Talk:Joe Collier], considering that Andy was working as a WiR at History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group, and used their resources to start an article about an eminent professor of medicine who is unrelated to his employer. --RexxS (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I largely agree with this, but I think it needs to be codified, and some sort of process developed for handling conflicts over interpretation. Maybe COIN would do, I don't know. One thing is clear: the paid connected tag is not really appropriate for a Wikimedian-in-residence programme. There should be a specific tag for that so that people looking to asses specific edits can check the details of the specific programme. And the bonkers bit here is that the real spammers don't give a fuck, they just carry on anyway - this is a fight between the good guys while the bad guys point and laugh. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

We have a specific tag for WiR that I created a number of weeks ago here. Per the talk page it is already becoming controversial.

If a university labels someone within their marketing department a WiR, this does not than allow them to upload the CV's / promotional pages of all their faculty to Wikipedia without disclosure. Is this what you are proposing User:RexxS?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Jytdog tagged and article Andy had edited with a COI tag. Understandably, that would be disconcerting for the tagged editor and is a clear accusation about COI involvement. I don't know how that can be denied. This is another indication of where this problem started and of Jytdog's accusatory position."The article where Andy and I started this clash -- a paid editor was paid to get tags removed and fix two other things and asked Andy to do that for him. What all of that is about, is subverting community review processes so that a client has a nice pretty clean PR piece. So really. No. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)"- another highly accusatory comment. The further discussion in an RfA was about adding a COI aspect to a clean up tag. Jytdog also said, "Widefox the language that WAID suggested, has only been objected to by people who operate in the territory of COI and who should be much more ginger than they are being here. I have started an RfC to try to get wider input; the parties talking here are not going to reach agreement. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)" Since Jytdog has already tagged Andy with a COI these comments seem pretty clear comments about Andy's involvement. (Perhaps to me too since I have also been tagged with a COI tag in the past and no real evidence given- disclaimer). I don't think Andy is digging a hole; I find Wikipedia narratives alarming. He's trying to get out of a hole someone else threw him in, quite a different kettle of fish, to mix metaphors. What might be a good idea is a bigger discussion about COI in an open forum where no one is accused of anything. COI accusations should not be used to control articles, discussions, or damage editors, and that is the way things are going right now. Guy, I really appreciate your measured input in this and I also appreciate that Jytdog has the best of the encyclopedia at heart.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC))

It's also very hard to list out the scenarios for PAID vs. COI vs. leaving a note on talk as best practice ("I met this guy once, so I am fixing this problem") without straying into WP:BEANS territory. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Littleolive oil's statement that I placed the tag that Andy removed, is not accurate; I did not place the tag at Martin Saidler that started all this. I didn't place any of the forty or so tags that Andy stripped. There is way too much bullshit (speech intended to persuade with regard for truth) being flung around this discussion.

I am also very unhappy with Guy's claim here which picks up the bullshit being repeated by RexxS (eg diff) that the RfC has anything to do with Andy or glam.

It does not have anything thing to do with that.

The issue being discussed in the RfC came up as a side conversation distinct from what Andy was doing, if you see the discussion here between WhatamIdoing, Widefox and me, you will see that. The phrase was added to the template instructions by WAID in this diff.

Adding "without a COI" would not even have prevented Andy from removing the tag at the Saidler article, or any of the 40 or so articles from which he stripped the tag. So not only is there a claim that I am underhanded, or trying to win a content dispute by changing the instructions (which is a slimey thing to do), but also that I am stupid.

I am none of those things.

The disagreement with Andy has been difficult. Discussions of COI are difficult. I have done some fucked up things, and I pretty much know when I am have done them. This was not one of them.

But this claim, coming from RexxS who is meant to be somebody respected and board-memberish, and coming from Guy, whom I have respected in many ways, about what I am doing and who I am is not tolerable. It's a petty thing, right? Why should I give a really care if people say nasty shit about me? On this issue, which is so core to what I spend much of my time doing here, it matters. Its not "hey you made a mistake" -- it's "you are doing slimey shit and plan on using this to do more". And that kind of thing, coming from respected people here? It will only get piled onto from there. There is no point in sticking around to watch the shitpile grow. And the work is difficult enough as it is. So I'm done here. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal team needs to call?

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

I wouldn't say so. They are asking what "would work". Although not very nicely. They have also now been warned about legal threats, so we can see whether they continue with such unwisely worded comments or not. MPS1992 (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: you are required to notify the user of this posting, and do not seem to have done so. I'll do that for you now. MPS1992 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Shit forgot to save.....my bad.--Moxy (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Moxy - It happens; I've forgotten to do it before, too ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeahhhh, no..... this is totally a legal threat and attempting to add a chilling effect out of anger and frustration and alongside blatant incivilty and personal attacks and while telling Walter Görlitz that he runs "a scam"- that is absolutely not gonna fly (not past my radar, at least). I've blocked the account indefinitely and let the user know with a custom notice. With a response like that, I'm happy to kindly put an end to that... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I love the fact that they are part of a Christian rock band but then use language and names like that. One of these things is not like the other. Canterbury Tail talk 15:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail - Having been raised by religious parents and all that jazz... yeah, I'm definitely in agreement with you there, Canterbury Tail. lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this while I slept. Special thanks to @The Rambling Man: for removing the content from my talk page and @Oshwah: for enacting the block. Should a proper block notice be placed on the subject's talk page? Also, do I need to provide additional background or is the edit history enough? It was primarily this edit where the subject credits himself as a "touring member", which is different from being an actual member of the band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz - No problem; always happy to help :-). I notified the user with a custom message here, which is a perfectly sufficient notice regarding their block ;-). Let me know if I can help with anything else and I'll be happy to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You know ... while working through AIV within the last week, I've seen a pretty similar edit by a different user. Can't recall who since someone else acted on it. And can't remember the article. But I definitely remember, "Are you a moron?" and something about the image. Just a thought if this comes up again, it's probably a sock. — Maile (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Shocker..... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Lugnuts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A blatant personal attack on me: [74]--Ymblanter (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fatih Arda İpcioğlu

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I made a mistake moving Fatih Arda İpcioğlu, which is correct, to Fatih Arda İpçioğlu, which is wrong, because I thought the correct surname should have a "ç" instead of a "c", which is grammatically the correct way in Turkish language. However, I learned that he writes his name with "c" instead of "ç". I kindly ask someone to restore it by deleting "Fatih Arda Ipcioğlu" to make way for moving "Fatih Arda İpçioğlu" to "Fatih Arda İpcioğlu", and finally deleting 1Fatih Arda İpçioğlu". Sorry for the trouble.. Thanks in advance. CeeGee 15:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi CeeGee! No apologies are needed - we all make mistakes and they're completely expected; it's no big deal at all :-). You should be all set - let me know if you need anything else and I'll be happy to help. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• A giant "Thank you". CeeGee 17:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: Verdy p

User Verdy p (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is ignoring WP:CIVIL, WP:Assume good faith and WP:EDITWAR on the Rockall article and Talk:Rockall. They have ignored and deleted a correctly referenced statement in the intro at least three times today and made inappropriate comments about other editors on the article Talk page. Warnings about this behaviour have been ignored. David J Johnson (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious breach of WP:3RR I'd like to draw attention to this edit. Baseless accusations of racism, whether implicit or explicit, should not be tolerated. nagualdesign 19:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I think their reverts fall outside the 24 hour window for a 3RR violation, but taken together with their talk page behaviour they do seem to have a problem comprehending Wikipedia’s approaches and policies, leading to frustration and incivility.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope, they breached 3RR. But what's more troubling is they are edit-warring against four other users.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 above. Verdy p, this ongoing edit war that you've been carrying out on Rockall is exactly what you should not be doing... Had I noticed this a few hours earlier rather than right now, I would have blocked your account for edit warring. The fact that you've stopped editing just shy of a few hours ago puts you at the very edge within a hair's breadth of this activity being considered as "in progress" versus "it's stopped now, and a block isn't necessary". Your repeated failure to interact and communicate within compliance of Wikipedia's civility policy is very concerning - especially when I see a response such as this one. It really sends the message to me that you have a very strong point of view regarding this subject (and possibly the topic). When you tell other editors that if they don't support your thoughts that they're intolerant and discriminatory against cultures, ethnic groups, and the handicapped - that's extremely unacceptable and worrisome to me, and it's caused me to lose confidence that you can be trusted to follow Wikipedia's policies and respect them consistently at this time. Because of this, I've revoked your pending changes reviewer user rights. I don't feel confident right now, given this evidence, that you can sufficiently hold them. You're on a final warning basis - you are expected to stop edit warring, and you are expected to interact with others and comply with Wikipeida's civility policies. Failure to do so will result in action. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not start the edit war, I was directly opposed arguments that were absolutely not reltaed top tghe facts exposed (reduse to read, just consider imperfect English style or knowledge as sufficient to ignore all) was harrassing and an exposed kind of insult. inor questions of style (which cvan be corrected constructiuvely and cooperatively) and used to ignore facts.

I just demonstrated that there were contradictions between the article and the sources it used. How to explain that ? Short or long answers are all ignored, the number of facts exposed, differnt ways of saying it, causes all this to be ignored. Yes I was insulted personnally and I'm not the initiator of this anticonstructive, antipersonal behavior. I was complaining against this attitude, I should not have been the one victim of further measures. Even the simple fact of exposing a "source needed" in the article was also reverted, the fact of marking that there's a contestable (unprooven) statements in an article (even if there are sources, which here don't match) should not be seen as an edit war but really as constructive. verdy_p (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

"user's incivility and edit warring": I am not the one that has made edit war. And I'm not the one that used incivility, and I complained against the user affirming this, using false statements and personal jusgements about me. I ignored the facts, and wanted opposed only lingusitic form (a minor aspect that can be corrected collaboratively but not required for discussion), and did not want to read anything. There was a contradiction and the contradiction remains in the article and the alleged sources (that are themselves contradicting, and are read selectively, i.e. severely biased against NPOV). verdy_p (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

KolbertBot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

I've replaced the archive link with a more 'current' version in the current style of the site, though it's still not HTTPS. Maybe KB needs to be wild-carded to avoid this type of situation? Nate • (chatter) 22:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Jon Kolbert is not even semi-protected.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: True, but I didn't look there, I looked at KolbertBot, which is where we go to communicate with the bot owner. To be honest, I wouldn't have gone there as I would have expected the same thing. I don't think I've ever seen a bot owner protecting the talk page of his bot in such a manner.

@Nate: Much appreciated! I have the page watchlisted, so I'll let you know if this problem pops up with the new link. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:04 on February 10, 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, Neutralhomer. You said the KolbertBot Talk page. User talk:KolbertBot is a redirect that sends you to the bot owner's Talk page. That's where you should have gone.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23 and Neutralhomer:, I template protected the bot's talk page on Jon's request because people had been posting there, when they should have been bringing it to his talk. This is something I know had been done for one of Cyberpower's bots before, and given it was a self-request in talk page, I granted it, since I thought it would be abundantly clear with the redirect who they should talk to. Hopefully this clears it up. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: As I have said before, I'm running on one year old information. A year ago we talked to bot operators on the bot talk pages for bot-related stuff and on the user talk page for user-related stuff. If that has changed, I was unaware of it. I know this now and so I will do so from here on. Prior to, I was using year old information (actually October 2016 and earlier). Again, I apologize. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:50 on February 10, 2018 (UTC)

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

Specifically, while the NYT announcement says so far only "articles published in 2014 and later" are HTTPS accessible, I want to convert them all right now for two reasons: (1) it does not break older links (for example), only redirect to HTTP again; but if NYT does that on their site, at least they keep the HTTP Referrer information. And (2) as they announced they "intend to bring the rest of our site under the HTTPS umbrella", so it's only a matter of time. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jon Kolbert:: The only reason that this is a problem for me and this article is this a Featured Article. The link, when run through CheckLinks, shows as 301/Permanently Moved. For sticklers and those more strict when it comes to FA rules, a permanent 301, even if it is the website's fault (in this case they are moving everything to https), they feel is a basis for removing a FA star. Yes, I've seen it. So, I'd rather not let something petty and minor cause problems for this FA. When the link goes to https, I can move it to correct header. I check the article via CheckLinks myself (this is my FA) about once a month. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:45 on February 10, 2018 (UTC)

It looks like Jon added a 'deny' template to the top of WINC (AM) for KB to prevent it from converting the HTTP to HTTPS; completely forgot about that (I use the same to deny the pesty DPL/NoBracket Bots from my user talk page). There will still need to be checks to see when it switches to HTTPS, but this should work pretty well until then. Nate • (chatter) 01:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I know this has been closed, but I just wanted to acknowledge Nate's response (and respond myself) and thank Jon and Nate for their help here. I'll keep an eye on the article via CheckLinks per usual. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:23 on February 11, 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nationalist user who may not be able to contribute

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A new user, Asepsia, does not seem to be able to contribute and it is starting to get disruptive. It's entirely possible that the problem is the user's lack of English skills. Messages written by the user are barely comprehensible (and sometimes incomprehensible even with the best of wills) and it also seems as if the user is unable to understand English. As a case in point: the user insists of inserting very dubious claims about the Spanish language, claiming countries such as Australia, Norway, Canada, Japan etc. as Spanish speaking in the infobox. Despite having been reverted by several users (myself included), Asepsia just keeps inserting these outlandish claims [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]. I've tried over and over again to explain on the talk page that this is not how we do things, and explained that infoboxes for comparable languages (English, French, Portuguese, German, Italian etc.) only list countries where the language is official. Despite me having explained this five times now, Asepsia seems unable to understand, and just keeps repeating that it is discrimination. Because of the Asepsia's poor English, it's not clear what the alleged discrimination is.
The only other article Asepsia has edited is USS Maine (ACR-1) and the pattern is the same there; while I cannot comment on the content (not knowing the USS Maine), it's clear that Asepsia in inserting very poor English and edit wars if reverted [80], [81], [82], [83]. Because of Asepsia's disruptive pattern, we now have a high profile article (Spanish language) claiming complete nonsense, and another article (USS Maine (ACR-1)) in something that is not English. Unfortunately I have to ask that Asepsia be blocked. Perhaps the user is not intentionally disruptive (although the heavy edit warring suggest otherwise). Even in the best of cases, a user who is not able to write correct English and apparently does not understand English sufficiently well to take in arguments in discussion cannot contribute. I suggest Spanish Wikipedia may be a better place for this user. Jeppiz (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:211.209.235.161

211.209.235.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Still the same person. After the previous 2 block expired and many warnings, he still remove content without reasons. See: [84] and more. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Numbers vandal

Resolved

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

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

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

WP:CIR, editor frequently calling constructive edits a "vandalism"

Xinjao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After he made this disruptive edit[85] where he called edit a "vandalism", by using a self-reverted edit[86] as justification, I warned him that constructive edits are not vandalism.[87] Indeed, that's something he already knows, but he is still frequently calling such edits a "vandalism".[88][89] He has been calling constructive edits a "vandalism" for a long time.[90][91][92][93][94][95]

WP:COMPETENCE issues are not limited to this. In his edit,[96] he used this source[97] for replacing "India" with "Indus River", but source says "India", not "Indus River". Lorstaking (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Administrator
I have explained my accusation on the talk page: Talk:Cradle_of_civilization#Intentionally_rewriting_sections_to_be_more_vague_is_Vandalism._(Indus_Valley_changed_to_Indo-Gangetic_Plain) NINE Sources have been provided where the majority refer to the Indus River. These 2 users have changed references to the Indus valley/Indus river to several other references that are NOT listed in the sources. They are engaging in Original Research and Edit warning, Ignoring talk page discussions and dragging other users to Administrator notice boards without engaging in discussions.
Please note that neither Lorstaking nor user User:EdwardElric2016 have contributed to the talk page. These users have simpled engaged in undoing constructive edits and plastering my talk page with warnings.

The entire premise of the article is based on the following section: Cradle_of_civilization#Single_or_multiple_cradles
The 9 sources list the INDUS RIVER.
Lorstaking Removed this reference in favour of "Indo-Gangetic plan" back in October: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cradle_of_civilization&diff=prev&oldid=804620625
I stand by my comment that this is vandalism as he is removing references to sourced information and adding his personal POV to articles while ignoring any talk page discussions. This user has not engaged with me in any constructive manner about the topic. He posted a warning and then created an admin incident. This is against everything wikipedia stands for. --Xinjao (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

User inserting false titleholder

Rndhnr has been on a cross-wiki campaign inserting a false titleholder in the article on the Duke of Gandía. I recently added an official reference (Official State Gazette, notice from the Spanish Ministry of Justice) on the current titleholder. Suspect that user Rndhnr is the same as the ip 60.153.93.4 who also edited the same article adding the same individual and also the same as HistoiredeFrance who left me a message claiming that the line is not accurate according to a soon-to-be-released book on the history of the Borja (Borgia) and whose edit in the article on Elzéar of Sabran, where he added the same false titleholder, was undone. Maragm (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Adding another suspect IP 60.152.122.245 who just reverted my edit removing false info. Maragm (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)