Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

There appears to be a multi-user edit war unfolding at

• I protected it fully for three days. Yes, the wrong version, of course! Drmies (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Should the latest edit be reverted? I've kind of lost track of what the consensus version was! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just a little birdie who blocks on instinct... Drmies (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a wp:Rouge admin he is obliged to protect wrong version. It's in our membership agreements. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to anyone who can work out what the wrong version is! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure what to do here, should I explain the situation or wait for admins' contribution? The protected version was not the consensus version (obviously!). --Kzl55 (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kzl55: Could you link to that version. If it's the last stable, pre-edit war version, an admin could restore. The purpose of PP though is to induce stakeholders to discuss competing versions as consensus can change. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could I also request that the editors involved in the dispute try to agree on a brief talk-page summary of the two different versions of the article that are being advocated? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I reverted the latest edit but only because the user was a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: If you take into account the agreement we have in the talk page (Cordless Larry, Koodbuur, Sandman25 and myself) that the article and section should be representative of all Somalis, as broadly as possible, as opposed to having two Sultans in the section belonging to the same group and the same sub-group (as supported by Soupforone and Cabuwaaqwanaag a confirmed sock of serial disruptive editor), then it is this version [1] though it is neither stable (due primarily to opposition by editor Soupforone who states that "...there is no actual Wikipedia policy indicating that clan representation must be followed. This is just a courtesy rather than a necessity" [2]). It has been restored now due to editor Cabuwaaqwanaag being confirmed as a sock. I would like to add that following a request to take the matter to the talk page by Cordless Larry [3], everyone was discussing the issue exclusively in the talk page until Soupforone's unilateral decision to go back to editing the page [4], which they continued despite requests to continue the discussion in the talk page [5], [6]. @Cordless Larry: I can do that no problem. Best wishes --Kzl55 (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the above: I agreed in principle that the images should be broadly representative, but haven't really been able to grasp exactly what the different proposals are. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've summarized the file stuff on the talkpage. Soupforone (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have also placed (a somewhat long, but necessary) summary in the talk page.

@

Mahmoud Ali Shire page includes addition of unsourced content and content from self-published and user-generated sources (as well as travel guides) despite multiple requests to only add content from reliable sources [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. On both occasions they were supported by long term vandal and confirmed sock Cabuwaaqwanaag. Can anything be done about them? --Kzl55 (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Another dispute about the Horn of Africa!!?! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Horn of Africa, including

There have been too many disputes about editing involving Somalia, and Ethiopia and Eritrea. It is time either to ask the ArbCom to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions, or to craft some version of Community General Sanctions that works as well as ArbCom discretionary sanctions, for the Horn of Africa. Otherwise these disputes will keep on coming back here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I indicated to the moderator Doug Weller on the talkpage that I was okay with the Deria file remaining [23]. He thanked me for that post as well. Ergo, the dispute is essentially over. Soupforone (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see my thanks as relevant to the bigger issue. Doug Weller talk 07:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The issue is not over, mainly due to Soupforone's refusal to accept input from other editors involved in the discussion, who all agree that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of Somalis as possible, not highlighting any particular group. @Robert McClenon and Doug Weller: I have addressed a pattern of behavioural issues by editor Soupforone that is contributing to to battleground editing in the project here, would really appreciate any input on how to take this further. Best wishes --Kzl55 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller didn't indicate anything about the issue not being over, nor did he write that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of individuals as possible. Nor for that matter did I indicate that the page should not feature as broad a base of individuals as possible. Those are straw man fallacies. Soupforone (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say Doug made comment on inclusivity. You attempted to suggest the issue was over because Doug thanked your post. You were corrected. This is exemplary of the kind of problematic behaviour I described earlier. The issue is not over just because you decided it is over. There is an agreement in the talk page that the article and section should be inclusive of all Somali groups (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman and myself all agree to this, though Cordless Larry did not make a statement on the edits yet). Your edits attempted to highlight two Sultans from the same clan (Darod), the same sub-clan (Kablalah) and same sub-sub-clan (Harti). So far you were only supported by long term disruptive editor of the project and confirmed sock Cabuwaaqwanaag. --Kzl55 (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I only restored the original Sultan Shire file. My editing rationale for this was that he "belongs to completely separate sultanate from other rulers" [24]. I also never claimed that this file choice had anything to do with "clan" since of course it did not. Further, what I actually wrote above is that Doug Weller "thanked me for that post as well", not that "the issue was over because Doug thanked my post". The latter causal phrasing is yours. The point was to show that Doug Weller was aware that I had agreed to the Deria file, which is what the OP is about. Also, Cordless Larry did not indicate that "the article and section should be inclusive of all Somali groups". What he actually wrote is that "the article featuring a diverse range of images intended to represent the population as broadly as possible, I agree that that is a good aim". That "a diverse range of images" automatically means "all Somali groups" is a leap, for that diversity could just as easily apply to gender, vocation, age group or birthplace as to clan/subclan. Also, you wrote above that "all agree that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of Somalis as possible", which would include Doug Weller. However, Doug Weller did not indicate this either. Soupforone (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And the argument goes on and on, and will perhaps go on until the Great Rift Valley splits the Horn of Africa off from the rest of Africa. We need draconian remedies for dealing with disruptive editing about the Horn of Africa. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An edit confirmation filter might be useful to better track socks and meatpuppeting and to vet ip and single purpose account edits. Soupforone (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind Robert McClenon but when Middayexpress was topic banned, TomStar81 included in the closing statement that "in order to effect a timely halt to any alleged sock or meat puppets that may be editing the pages, administrators may at their discretion adopt a WP:1RR policy on all Somalia-related topics to enforce this ban". Sockpuppetry isn't the only issue affecting Horn of Africa topics, but perhaps a 1RR policy is necessary. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cordless Larry - Yes. That case is a good example of why special restrictions are needed on the Horn of Africa. Any sort of editing restriction would probably be a good idea, and is consistent with my view. If the proposed restriction seems draconian, then it is probably a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soupforone, you did not just restore the original file, you also removed the addition of Sultan Deria. You also restored the file of Sultan Shire complete with unsourced description [25] despite clear edit summary indicating it was unsourced [26]. You stated that Doug Weller thanked you, and made a comment about the dispute being "essentially over", this comment made little sense as even Doug replied to you saying how he does not see his thanks as relevant to the bigger issue. As for Cordless Larry, you are incorrect. My post specifically stated "With regards to your stance on representation, I am in agreement with Koodbuur. The section relates to the history of Somalis, it is important for an encyclopaedic article to be inclusive of all Somalis and not only highlight members of any one group" and at the end of that post I asked the opinions of Koodbuur and Cordless Larry on a number of issues including representation [27] to which Cordless Larry replied: "...but on the point about the article featuring a diverse range of images intended to represent the population as broadly as possible, I agree that that is a good aim" [28]. I have specifically stated inclusivity of all Somalis, and for the section to not be highlighting any one group. Thus it is not a leap. Please stop misrepresenting editors.

As for my statement you are quoting, it is clear "The issue is not over, mainly due to Soupforone's refusal to accept input from other editors involved in the discussion, who all agree that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of Somalis as possible", I do not understand why you are involving Doug when he explicitly stated he'd rather not get involved [29]. All involved editors (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman and myself) agree that the article should be inclusive of as broad a base of Somalis as possible.--Kzl55 (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment above specifically pertained to the files of the sultans Shire and Kenadid, not to that of Deria ("your edits attempted to highlight two Sultans from the same clan (Darod), the same sub-clan (Kablalah) and same sub-sub-clan (Harti)"). Hence, that is what I addressed. That interpretation of what Cordless Larry wrote is also clearly incorrect since you similarly suggested above that "if you take into account the agreement we have in the talk page (Cordless Larry, Koodbuur, Sandman25 and myself) that the article and section should be representative of all Somalis, as broadly as possible, as opposed to having two Sultans in the section belonging to the same group and the same sub-group", to which Cordless Larry clarified that he actually wasn't even sure what the file issue was about ("Just to clarify the above: I agreed in principle that the images should be broadly representative, but haven't really been able to grasp exactly what the different proposals are."). I also never indicated whether the article should or should not include as broad a base of Somalis as possible (which could mean anything from gender to vocation, age group, clan/subclan, or birthplace), so that was not even the issue. Likewise, by "ergo, the dispute is essentially over", I was referring to the prefacing phrase, where I pointed out that I had let Doug Weller know that I was okay with the Deria file ("I indicated to the moderator Doug Weller on the talkpage that I was okay with the Deria file"). The following phrase "he thanked me for that post as well" was to show that Doug Weller was aware that I had agreed to the Deria file. Perhaps this could've been worded better, but that is all I indicated. One can only address what is actually written. Soupforone (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replying to the ping, but I've still got a wicked inner ear infection, a very bad cough, and I'm on enough prescriptions medications to knock a bull elephant out for a month. That being said, having looked through this I'm not seeing that Soupforone has been accused or even suspected of being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Middayexpress. Remember, the 1RR condition referenced above applies specifically to Middayexpress's perceived editing interference with the topic, if you want to adopt general sanctions for the page or for articles constantly effected by regional conflict you'll need to open a discussion specifically for that in order to avoid dragging Middayexpress's now dormant account or Soupforone's contributions through the gauntlet of a public trial, otherwise whatever you work out is going to be perceived as applying specifically to the editor(s) for this specific case as opposed to everyone broadly construed as editing the page. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soupforone, the fact remains you have restored Sultan Shire's file complete with unsourced description [30] despite explicit indication of description having no source [31]. Cordless Larry clarified he was not able to grasp exactly what the different proposals are, but stated he agrees with the principle that the images should be broadly representative. As stated above, in my post I specifically stated my agreement with Koodbuur on inclusivity, and I asked Cordless Larry and Koodbuur their opinions on a number of issues including representation [32], at which point Cordless Larry made his comment "...but on the point about the article featuring a diverse range of images intended to represent the population as broadly as possible, I agree that that is a good aim" [33]. It is clear there is an agreement among editors involved (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman and myself) on the issue of broad representation and inclusivity, even if Cordless Larry did not state an opinion on the proposals yet. You stated above "...for that diversity could just as easily apply to gender, vocation, age group or birthplace as to clan/subclan", which is incorrect given the context explained above of Cordless Larry's reply to the specific point I have raised: "it is important for an encyclopaedic article to be inclusive of all Somalis and not only highlight members of any one group", I think that much is clear.--Kzl55 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the 26th Sultan title was already sourced at that time mark to the sultanate's official website [34]. Also, "inclusivity" is a nebulous term. If by that "clan/subclan" specifically was/is meant, this is not clear from foregoing since the word "clan" is not even used. What is certain is that I never indicated whether the page should or should not include as broad a population base as possible. I wrote instead that there is no actual Wikipedia policy indicating that clan representation must be followed, which is a different thing. Soupforone (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 26th Sultan title was not sourced [35], and you were explicitly alerted to the fact it was not sourced prior to your restoration [36], yet you did so anyway. As it stands, you have restored unsourced content to the page without providing adequate

WP:RS sourcing. The word clan does not need to be explicitly used, I used the word 'group' instead just like I did in other comments like ("There is also the issue of representation and neutrality, the section already includes a photograph of Ali Kenadid, him and the Warsangali Sultan belong to the same group") [37]. We were discussing the fact that both Sultans you attempted to insert belonged to the same group. My original sentence which Cordless Larry responded to explicitly stated ("it is important for an encyclopaedic article to be inclusive of all Somalis and not only highlight members of any one group"), 'group' here is used in referring to a problematic aspect of the section being Kenadid and Shire belonging to the same group, thus the discussion on inclusivity of a broad base of Somalis. I think the point is very clear. As I said above it is clear there is an agreement among editors involved (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman and myself) on the issue of broad representation and inclusivity, even if Cordless Larry did not state an opinion on the proposals yet.--Kzl55 (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

We are discussing your restoration of unsourced material to an article [40], despite clear warning that it was unsourced [41]. That is problematic behaviour, and I do not see how

WP:OI is relevant to your restoration of unsourced content. You're incorrect to confuse Cordless Larry "good aim" comment with the issue of proposals. I have requested their opinion on a number of issues including representation [42], to which he replied (""...but on the point about the article featuring a diverse range of images intended to represent the population as broadly as possible, I agree that that is a good aim"") [43], his position on representation, as it pertains to my comment in which I asked for his opinion, is clear. He has not stated an opinion on the proposals yet, but it is clear there is an agreement among editors involved (Koodbuur, Cordless Larry, Sandman and myself) on the issue of broad representation and inclusivity. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I've been grinding through Category:Somalia geography stubs because I discovered that a lot of them are dumps from a Geonames-derived directory and that accuracy was poor. Most of these were created by User:Middayexpress, who I knew was no longer around. I was not, however, aware of their history.

I've been nominating these one at a time, but at this rate I may end up with fifty or more AfDs. Is there some way expedite this? I'm not keen on doing a group nom because (a) in practice it's more work anyway, and (b) someone is sure to come in and try to bollox it by insisting that they all have to be considered separately. Mangoe (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[non-administrator comment] - The only thing I have seen in the past, is to merge a few; then wait a while and AfD the merged articles, to reduce the number. In most cases I would not like this and oppose such actions, but if they truly are as bad as you say, it would be a blessing in this case. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above post by Mangoe is a great example of the fanatic and almost religious deletionism that is prevalent on wikipedia. Editors such as him are also one of the reasons Africa-related articles are under-represented on Wikipedia. 92.9.152.17 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the point isn't article count, not that I haven't created plenty, every one of them typed in and checked against sources beyond dumping lists in from websites or who knows where else. But people sitting back in London have already created too many spurious places over the years by misreading texts and taking traveller's reports and maps for granted. My standards aren't that high, but Geonames is far from error-free, and when you start actually checking these things against aerial photography, it becomes apparent how bad the information an get. And yes, transliteration is an issue, which I've already tried to take into account. Look, find me a census, news reports, anything that is better than just lists out of Geonames, and we'll be on a much better footing. Mangoe (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative hypothesis: it's a great example of some poor bugger sweeping up the mess left by people who didn't think something through. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to adopt general sanctions for all articles on or related to the Horn of Africa (broadly construed)

@Dlohcierekim, Kzl55, Bbb23, Soupforone, Robert McClenon, Doug Weller, Mangoe, C. W. Gilmore, Cordless Larry, and Drmies: In lew of the above discussion, and in light of the allegations leveled at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress, I would propose that at this point it may be in the community's best interest to adopt general sanctions for all articles on or related to the Horn of Africa (broadly construed). In putting forth this proposal I note for the record the contentious editing history of several pages in the area, the accusations of sockpuppetry, and McClenon's outsanding summary above:

The Horn of Africa, including Somalia, is the locus of battleground editing because it is an area of the world that is a real battleground. The English Wikipedia has dealt with battleground editing of battleground areas, such as Israel and Palestine and India and Pakistan, and areas that have been battlegrounds in the past and where memories are long, such as the Balkans (where World War One started) and Eastern Europe (where World War Two and the Cold War started), in the past. The battleground editing of these battleground areas has been dealt with by ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which are sometimes draconian and so work well at suppressing the battles. There have been too many disputes about editing involving Somalia, and Ethiopia and Eritrea. It is time either to ask the ArbCom to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions, or to craft some version of Community General Sanctions that works as well as ArbCom discretionary sanctions, for the Horn of Africa. Otherwise these disputes will keep on coming back here.

Accordingly then, in order to effect a timely halt to deteriorating conditions, I propose the following be indefinitely adopted for all Horn of Africa related articles until such time as community consensus or ARBCOM rule otherwise:

All Horn of Africa related pages shall be indefinitely

extend-confirmed protected

In order to edit any page on or related to the Horn of Africa an editor must register an account so that the community can see whose been editing the articles and to prevent troublesome editors from sneaking content into or out of the articles. Additionally, this will allow editors and administrators to more accurately assemble names for the purpose of opening Sockpuppet investigations or for imposing topic bans, should either of those options become necessary.

A 1RR sanction is unilaterally applied to all articles on or related to the Horn of Africa

All editors must not make more than 1 revert in a period of 24 hours to any Horn of Africa article save but for reverting clear and obvious vandalism. Per the precedent set forth at Talk:Donald Trump, in the event a list of consensus approved material should appear on the talk page of an article within the Horn of Africa region then reverts to consensus as listed on the talk page of that article will not count against the 1RR limit, however all editors will be required to link to the list in their edit summaries when reverting in order to infer protection for their revert.

Any material removed from an article in good faith may not be re-added without community consensus

If any editor removed any content in good faith then the material may not be re-added to the article body in question without community consensus to do so. Consensus must be obtained on the talk page of the article in question, and all relevant wikiprojects must be informed of the discussion to obtain consensus for the questioned material. Material that has been removed as a result of consensus may not be re-added to the article without first obtaining consensus to do so, and editors whose material has been removed or reinserted may not reopen any discussion on the matter for a minimum of six months. Editors who repeatedly abuse this privilege (ie: attempt to circumvent consensus by filing notices to ANI, editors re-adding the material to the body before consensus has been reached on the talk page, or editors who supported or opposed the consensus reopening the discussion so the original opener won't have to wait 6 six months, etc) may be topic banned at the community's request or blocked for disruptive editing at any administrator's discretion.

Editors to all Horn of Africa related articles are expected to adhere to Wikipedia's Conduct Policies

Editors to Horn of Africa related articles are reminded to remain civil, honor current consensus in Horn of Africa related articles, and to follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes when editing Horn of Africa related articles. Editors who repeatedly ignore these conduct policies when editing Horn of Africa related articles may be topic banned from the subject at the community's request or blocked for disruptive editing at any administrator's discretion.

If adopted, all actions must be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Horn of Africa

Per

administrators' noticeboard. Likewise, editors wishing to report possible violations of community sanctions should do so at the administrators' noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Just to note that I didn't get a notification of your mention above, TomStar81, as you forgot to sign your post. I am re-pinging the others. @Dlohcierekim, Kzl55, Bbb23, Soupforone, Robert McClenon, Doug Weller, Mangoe, C. W. Gilmore, and Drmies: see above. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is quite draconian, especially the extended confirmed protection and content removal. I would think the starting point should be the Syrian GS. Why do you think this area needs significantly more restrictions than the Syrian conflict? Also, 'broadly construed' is, from what I have seen, a can of drama in its own right. Is there a specific, core, group of articles where sanctions would cut significant drama? Jbh ^Talk 15:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure what I will support and am awaiting comments, but I won't support consensus required and I'd have to see a lot of support for ECP before I'd agree to it here. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doug Weller: As an observation, you may have noticed that each section above has a star in the editing window below the paragraph so folks can support just what they want to for exactly this reason; I wanted to get a feel as to what sanctions if any people were in favor of and which ones they disliked. On that note, if you want to lead by example you are certainly welcome to, most folks will only follow what others have done so if they see individuals supporting/opposing/abstaining on the individual sections its likely to inspire them to do the same, which over the coming days should clear up what people do and don't want here. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the proposed general sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• All Horn of Africa related pages shall be indefinitely extend-confirmed protected No. No. Also God no. No opinion on any of the rest of it. But WikiProject Africa has more than a hundred thousand articles within it's scope, presumably at least a few tens of thousands of which would somehow fall under this. Just because ArbCom may have once made a wildly dumb decision to authorize ECP for dozens of thousands of articles related to Israel/Palestine doesn't mean it wasn't terrible, and should ever be emulated. GMG^talk 18:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose anything more than "standard discretionary sanctions" and the ability for admins to place pages under 1RR is too much based on what is presented here.
  π, ν) 06:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

In the past, user:Sander.v.Ginkel was the subject to many discussions on this page due to his substandard work. See here, here, here, here and here.

Sander.v.Ginkel got an offer from a user:MFriedman to protect/improve articles something that made people unhappy. See also here. Still, MFriedman went on with moving articles back to main space from draft space, effectively circumventing/ignoring the clean up operation. So far, so good. And the name stuck in my memory.

Recently, Sander.v.Ginkel placed an article on the Dutch Wikipedia nl:Ilse Kamps. And out of the blue, after a 4.5 year hiatus, MFriedman showed up to vote for keeping the article due to the article being properly sourced. But MFriedman added these sources, after his vote. At that moment my alarm bells went off!
I requested a sockpuppet investigation and it came back positive. The Checkuser confirmed that Sander.v.Ginkel and MFriedman were identical.

So now we are confronted with a lot of articles that were never checked for the substandard editing of Sander.v.Ginkel moved back into main space by what turned out to be a sockpuppet of Sander.v.Ginkel, MFriedman. This is clearly misusing a sockpuppet to protect articles against thorough scrutiny.

What to do next? The Banner talk 15:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser needed I don't know what's the community consensus regarding accepting CU results on another wiki. If one of our checkusers confirms then I'm looking at indeffing both accounts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, the CU is stale as MFriedman has not edited on the English Wikipedia since February 2017. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. At the moment, I wouldn't support a block for it would be against policy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from AN) No need for an investigation. You can just ask me, and yes I'm using both accounts Sander.v.Ginkel and MFriedman. When the account Sander.v.Ginkel was blocked I used MFriedman, including review my own articles I created with. See that there are no main issues in the articles I reviewed and added references where needed. See as example here, here, here, here, here, here etc.. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Sander.v.Ginkel for six months and the puppet account indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And how is Sander.v.Ginkel's block preventative in any way? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: It prevents them from quite flagrantly violating basic policies whenever they feel like it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the latest violation was one year ago. I agree that the sock could be blocked, but Sander's block to me seems punitive since it is so long after the fact. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago was when SvG also stopped editing before resuming this weekmonth. I do not believe he would have stopped socking had he not been caught last week on the Dutch Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scores of his pages moved to Draft are coming up for

• Back when this issue first came up there was pretty clear consensus to indef block this user. Unfortunately, that consensus was overruled in a pretty blatant supervote. If the views of the participants in that discussion had not been discarded and ignored on a whim, this ongoing disruption could have been avoided- as I said at the time. Reyk _YO! 16:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No issue with me if editors want to change my six month block into an indef. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already requested a User_talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#February_2018 block review. My review is to indef. There are a lot of page moves that need to be checked again Special:Contributions/MFriedman Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some Wikipedians have already misjudged the likelihood that SvG would continue to be a problem editor. I think some editors have, in their misguided mercy, forgotten that

WP:BLOCKDETERRENT is supposed to have deterrent value. If en-wiki is unwilling to halt the editing of problem editors, then it only encourages this sort of activity where crocodile-tears promises and the forgiveness of long-undetected misbehavior becomes the norm. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• I've just noticed that MFriedman commented in the thread linked by Reyk above that somewhat swayed a few following comments! SvG claims he "wasn't aware how bad it is to use another account." It should be obvious that you shouldn't use an alternative account to support yourself. With this in mind, I'd support upgrading the block to indefinite. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MFriedman discussed SvG as another person here [44] which is deceitful and suggestive we can't believe the statements in the unblock request either. It is pretty clear that their promotions of SvG pages back to mainspace were problematic from the talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef- obviously. Reyk _YO! 19:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through this past thread and noting SvG's assertion that he wasn't "aware how bad it is to use another account" [45] I believe more than ever that my six month block was justified. This isn't tripping over some Wikipedia policy, this is an indication of a lack of basic common sense and ethics. We cannot have an editor deficient in both areas editing freely here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Is Beatley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) likely to be another sock? Guy (Help!) 20:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I though Beatley is a confirmed sock of Slowking4.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just don't know Slowking4, I don't know if this could be one sockfarm. I guess not, though. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in that original ANI thread, I'm shocked that someone who is meant to be submitting a Master's thesis has such a poor grasp of copyright. The debacle is further evidence that they do not belong here. Using another account to mark their own work as "no problem", despite the extensive issues found, is akin to submitting an exam paper and giving it full marks themselves. Support indefinite ban Blackmane (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Permaban. Now. I checked the stats: Pages created 37,054 of which 22,482 since deleted, I don't think I have ever seen an editor with that many deleted creations before - and then add the blatantly deceptive sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the consensus is clear; given the deceptive sockpuppetry after they were very lucky to get away without an indef ban last time, I have changed the block to an indefinite one. This is required in order to prevent further damage to the project by an individual who clearly does not see the need to follow our rules, and who cannot be trusted to conform to the expectations of the wider editing community. I haven't had time to consider the question of this user's articles yet, but I think that is a discussion that needs to be had separate to this block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Indef block - I am not impressed in the least by the Wikilawyering/
  WP:COMMONSENSE reign. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Are we considering Lankiveil's block a community imposed sanction? That will affect the nature of any future appeals. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That is my view of it, although others may have alternative perspectives. Given that nobody has objected or done anything in the past few days since I made the block I think we could also consider it a de facto ban. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• Cross-wiki activity - This user has been blocked on Commons per the above CU results, the user has uploaded on both accounts mentioned in an act of sockpuppetry, uploading dozens to hundreds of files as "own work" while attributing real Olympic photographers names as the author. His crosswiki activity supports the indef block as discussed above. These files are now being nuked. ~riley (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The articles

I started G5ing the article, but looking at it again, that may not be what's needed. Many were moved back while SvG was not actually blocked, though he undoubtedly would have been if this had been spotted. If they had remained in Draft, most would long ago have qualified for G13 as very few had any substantive edits at all other than the SvG sock (a few bots and formatting edits, and almost none with any edits in the last 6 months). The issues that led tot he move to Draft have undoubtedly not been fixed in more than a tiny proportion of cases, since there have been few if any edits to any of them.

Should I leave them nuked, or restore and move them back to Draft? Guy (Help!) 20:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow thought that at some point I nuked all the articles which were left in the draft, there were around 5K of them. I am surprised that there are still any left. Is it clear what the origin of these drafts is? Were they moved out of the draft and then moved back? On an unrelated note, I do not see anything controversial with the deletions, but delinking the pages from Olympic-related pages might be not necessarily the best idea - all Olympians are notable, and redlinks are way more visible than black unlinked text. Also, if an article is created by a good faith user, it takes a bit of time to figure out where it should be linked from.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Created by SvG, moved to draft during cleanup, moved back by MFriedman with comments like "checked" or "no SvG issues". Guy (Help!) 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I would say then indefblock and mass deletion. This is clearly evasion of sanctions imposed by community on SvG.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They shouldn't be unlinked. There are several prolific creators of Olympian biographies, and this adds a time-consuming additional step if/when they create these ones. —Xezbeth (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. will bear that in mind. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suck's that a nuke had to happen and olympic medal winner's like Alec Potts end up deleted but i guess it had too happen, feel sorry for the poor soul who has to clean up the nuke's results. GuzzyG (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WT:OLY. I'll do this one later at some point. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• All to drafts I am absolutely not convinced, because I have dealt with a bunch of SvG articles and have not found a problem that cannot be corrected easily. SvG did a lot of gnomic legwork that helps the wikipedia project, mostly by creating stubs and basic information about subjects that are less exciting to most editors but notable enough to achieve
  WP:N. Below, I have gotten harangued by all number editors with generalized complaints, while when I deal with the specifics, I seem to be regarded as the problem. I was criticized for approving SvG articles (and subsequently improving upon his start up), because I have NOT deleted any SvG articles. That is backward logic, assuming there is a problem. You have a predetermined verdict and will not tolerate hearing opposition. If I can, and I have done so, make the article a viable subject for mainspace, what is the crime here? Admittedly, I've only dealt with a couple hundred SvG articles in my area of expertise. All useable. The above editors complain about the number of SvG articles that have been deleted. Those ARE THE SAME EDITORS WHO DELETED MANY OF THEM. They created their own excuse. At this point, I don't trust them. Bring all the previously deleted content to draft status. Let real editors, with knowledge in those subject areas, look at those articles and decide if it is useful or not. This will take time a lot of time. We do not need an artificial deadline. While in draft form, the public does not see this content. There are tens of thousands of articles. Each one needs attention from someone with a brain. Bulk deletion is mindless and destructive. Maybe, eventually, you will see the cumulative merit to SvG's work. Maybe I will eventually see something he did that was worthy of deletion. We aren't there yet. Trackinfo (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I looked at this article. The version SvG moved into article space had four sentences, one of which was an obvious BLP violation [46] (admins only). How can they have missed this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Between you and me, I don't think the sports fans necessarily look very hard - they are generally looking to have as many articles as possible, and any article that has superficial referenciness gets pretty much a free pass. Hence the massive problem with SvG. They mean well, but their inclusion standards are, IMO, well below the norm for Wikipedia. "Competed in X" suffices even if nobody wrote about the person in any way at all other than in the results table. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pageant fans have the same or bigger issues. High school students blessed with classicly attractive genes get articles - often with zero references - while we regularly reject pages on business people that spend years building up companies, employing thousands, creating new innovative products and driving the economy forward. Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a list of SvG drafts tagged as "Promising Drafts" on User_talk:Legacypac#SvG. They have the same issues that the others do, and should be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC) (now resolved). Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Are we done now? EEng 07:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sipos111 (talk · contribs) recently joined to push content related to the recent shooting in Florida. While I understand the wish to add recent content that doesn't excuse outing Wiki editors, myself and @Niteshift36: on an external website. [[47]] Here is where Sipos111 tells another editor that he is involved in the external posting. [[48]] Springee (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That article is from April 2017 (10 months ago), doesn't appear to engage in

π, ν) 22:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

No

❤ 22:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I missed the date. The new editor posted The link today and based on the accompanying statements I assumed it was recent. I would still be suspicious that a new editor would post such an article their first day here. Springee (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps - best if we just let them get on with contributing and see where that leads, at least for now? -

❤ 22:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I have no opinion on the outing, I didn't read the full article in the external link. However, based on Sipos111's behavior, I have to agree they are WP:NOT HERE to build an encyclopaedia. Rather, their only goal here seems to be pushing an anti-gun agenda. I've tried to advise them that WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX, but there may also be a WP:CIR competency issue. They don't appear interested (by their own comments) in learning WP P&G or contributing effectively. If all they want to do push an agenda and disrupt articles of sporting good manufacturers in pursuit of that agenda, then that makes them an SPA and we really consider the value of keeping their account active against the stability of the project. (my 0.02¢) -

^theWOLFchild 23:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• It's not outing. However, it is a personal attack. I also wonder how the user found the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose you were not able to answer your own question, Bbb. FYI, one of the things that the Lightbreather case taught me is that there is a TON of off-wiki collusion (NO COLLUSION NO COLLUSION HERE FOLKS NOTHING TO SEE), so I'm not surprised to see LB's musings pop up here. Also, well, a whole bunch of people got killed, and some are upset, including me. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (mostly). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing the personal attack then - could someone point me to it? -

❤ 00:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I call it more "uncivil" in my opinion. Their messages here, here, and here make unfounded accusations of one's "agenda" and are indeed absolutely unnecessary and un-collaborative in nature. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that -

❤ 00:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Sipos, make up your mind. If you want to get blocked and brag about it, just continue to do what you're doing. If you want to edit Wikipedia, get serious. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies - Regardless, I'm pretty much prepared to impose an indefinite topic ban on Sipos111 from anything related to firearm ownership on this project. This user's edits on this topic clearly show personal bias and POV-pushing, and it would benefit this topic area if this user were prohibited from participating there. This user has been alerted, and as far as I'm concerned - he's fair game to have editing restrictions imposed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that an indefinite block is warranted. It's clear that he was recruited by Lightbreather, to come to Wiki for the soul purpose of causing disruption and adding a political agenda. Please see https://twitter.com/Lightbreather?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor for more information.--RAF910 (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see Lighbreather retweeted Feinstein--good, Feinstein deserves a medal. I don't take the "recruiting" part very seriously, not until we have proof of collusion (I know how that sounds, haha). It's entirely possible that Sipos came here because of that, but that doesn't invalidate Sipos as an editor; we all came here one way or another. This is not leading to a block right now, but let's see how they continue. If they're fine, fine. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These responses left by the user here and here might be a sign that this user is reading the concerns expressed (either here or expressed to them directly) and might be taking it to heart and wising up. While this is nice to see, I would very much like to see Sipos111 respond here as well... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all - this has been an education. I honestly learned a lot about how this whole wikipedia thing works, which is fascinating. And ugly. I now understand a bit about why things areset up the way they are, and I can't say I could design better conventions, internal politics and power trips and ways to game the system included.

I'll freely admit I came here pissed off. I have two young kids, and when they start school they'll soon be going through active shooter drills. I can only hope that's the most my family ever feels as a result of this epidemic of mass shootings. And imagining what kids all over this country go through is a nightmare. This is going to happen again soon. Maybe today. Maybe next week. Nothing is happening to stop it. Gun manufacturers have an incredible amount of power in this situation. They could help. Instead, they give huge sums to the NRA, which is very effective at preventing any sensible gun legislation from getting through. And why would they help when gun sales jump after every mass shooting? I'd argue that if you're not pissed then something is wrong with you. It isn't right, and I don't think it has to be this way.

Personally, I think the standard set by the firearms group sets the bar for mention on the corporation's page way too high. If a corporation's product is used (to kill 17 human beings) in an event that is a national news story, then that seems worth mentioning on the corporation's page. If the event warrants its own wikipedia page, then connecting the corporation to the event seems appropriate. Mass shootings and other prominent usage (illegal or otherwise) of a coporation's products clearly have an impact on that corporation (e.g., negative publicity around illegal usage played a role in S&W rebranding itself), and understanding this can help wikipedia readers to understand the corporation and it's place in history. And mass shootings are an important fact of our modern history. As I've said, I don't have the time or the mental energy to be active on wikipedia. I'll leave it to you all to debate this, if anyone here cares to.

As most or all have figured out, I didn't write that lightbringer article, nor did anyone send me. I just googled the user who undid my changes, and I saw laid out in that article what appeared to be a clear pattern of biased edits in favor of gun manufacturers. I think there may very well be good faith intentions behind that activity (who knows? or maybe half of you are paid shills for corporations. Or maybe we're all just Russian trolls.) But I saw in this thread the suggestion that someone with a strong bias shouldn't be allowed to edit within a topic. Well, if the community actually cares about that, then I think the lightbringer article warrants more attention. Personally, I think you'll have a hard time finding anyone who doesn't have strong feelings about many of the articles they choose to edit, especially if the articles have any overlap with a political topic.

Thanks to all who offered me advice. And thank you all for your work on this project that is wikipedia.

Take care! Sipos111 (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on Bbb's comments, the diffs above, and Sipos111's own comments, it's very clear that Sipos has a strong agenda. Clearly not NPOV and should be no where near these articles. Regardless of whether they are truly leaving, or disbanding this account for a sock, a ban should be established.--v/r - TP 01:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

discretionary sanctions, applying an article or topic ban only requires the action of an uninvolved administrator... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Although I am not involved in this matter or the participants - many people would describe me as having a point of view that is incompatible with acting as an uninvolved administrator. While I disagree and believe that I have the objectivity to act fairly, there are plenty of available admins that it isn't justified for me to cause the drama that it would if I were to act.--v/r - TP 20:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one seems to have mentioned just a reminder that if the external link really did contain outing, you should not have been publicly linking to it here without asking Niteshift36 first. (It's generally suggested you don't link pages which out you either since that effectively means discussing any info contained there here on wikipedia is no longer outing, but that's ultimately your choice.) Also as said the blog appears to belong to another editor, currently banned as result of an arbcom case. Note that you also need to take care not to out other editors, regardless of whether they may have outed you or others, by linking to their work elsewhere. It often doesn't matter even if they disclose who they are here on the other site or it's fairly obvious due to the same name, what matters is what they disclose here. However in this case it seems the blog is linked on meta Meta:User:Lightbreather (not sure about here), so that's probably not really a concern. Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll say little here except that I wouldn't exactly call this outing, although LB has a history of that with others. I've been aware of it since last year. While it may target me, it falls short of outing. As for the collusion, who recruited whom or how editors feel about the topic.... I'll leave that up to the rest of you. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to do this, but Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Andy) has got another bee in his bonnet. He has decided that COI tags on articles are a BLP problem, and is removing them based on a legalistic interpretation of the tag documentation. Specifically, he removes the tag if there is no active talk page section discussing the COI - even if there is a rather obvious identification of the COI on Talk, or if the discussion was initiated but has archived out.

Example:

• Harvey Newquist II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• [Article] 00:01, February 16, 2018‎ Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (5,216 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (nothing on talk;) [49]
• [Talk] 03:53, February 16, 2018‎ Bri (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (378 bytes) (+170)‎ . . (paid-editor relationship disclosed here) [50]
• [Talk] 03:54, February 16, 2018‎ Bri (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (428 bytes) (+50)‎ . . (Hnewquist connected? possibly.) [51]
• 11:54, February 16, 2018‎ Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (4,776 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (still nothing on talk page) [52]
• 16:06, February 16, 2018‎ Pigsonthewing (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (4,396 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (→‎top: Still nothing on talk) [53]

So, this is an article that had a COI tag due to an admitted paid connection and a username that is very obviously a family member, but there was no identification of this on Talk. The first removal was, IMO, fair. However, the second and third removals occurred after templates had been added tot he Talk page identifying not only a paid editor but also an obvious family member and that is into

This is not the first time. Examples:

• [54] was valid, and a tag was added to talk shortly afterwards
• [55] had a Talk template identifying an obviously conflicted editor for over two years before Andy removed the COI tag.
• [56] had a paid editor tag on Talk since January and a discussion on Talk but it was auto-archived out on Jan 9 [57].

So we have an absolutely standard Andy situation, where he is 100% sincere, completely committed, has the very best of intentions, is sometimes undoubtedly right, but, equally, sometimes unequivocally wrong, and prepared to edit-war over it. We have been here before, many times, over many years.

The current problem is IMO relatively easily solved: a topic ban on removing COI templates, either entirely or where there is a {{

As you know, the requirement for {{COI}} is (formatting in original, the tempalte's /Doc page):

Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning.

To emphasise, that's what is non-neutral about the article.

As you also know, a recent ANI case on the removal of the tag was closed with this finding:

Removing tags is fine, re-adding them is also fine but, per template's instructions and long-standing practice, only if... there is genuine evidence to underpin the tag, in the form of a specific post on Talk describing the issue at hand

I find it odd that you fail to mention this, given that you closed that ANI case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is also ongoing discussion, initiated by Guy, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#The mess that is COI tagging. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See above: "legalistic". See also: discussion archived out. You did not check for that. But all you've done here is prove my point, sadly. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"discussion archived out" Talk:Harvey Newquist II was created on the eleventh of this month (six days ago); as I checked, before removing the tag; I'm curious as to how you think you would know otherwise. It has no archives. Or perhaps you refer to the Steve Vai article. Again, I checked (and again, how would you know otherwise?), saw the old discussion and noted that it discussed who had edited, but not what is non-neutral about the article. I also noted the vast amount of editing, by very many editors, in the article, between when the tag was placed, in January 2016, and when I viewed it, over two years later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, you're doing it again. You behave as if your viewpoint has unambiguous consensus, even when it plainly doesn't, even when you have numerous times been sanctioned for doing exactly the same thing. Your legalistic interpretation of the tag instructions is that a talk page discussion must have been initiated. You didn't even check to see if it ever had been, and you removed a tag despite (a) clear evidence of COI and (b) a talk page discusison actually having been initiated. You were wrong. You were also wrong about Newquist because not only is there a family member editing, there's also a paid account. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Ec] ...and see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Please unclose close at ANI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Good grief. You've been thumping on Andy for two weeks straight. Give it a rest already. "hate to do this" my ass - one thread after another. SMH — Ched :  ?  — 14:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not I have been looking at a long-running fight sustained on one side largely by Andy, and his history, including two twelve-month sitebans indicates that his is hardly new. If I was thumping on Andy I'd have asked for rather more than a narrow restriction to control obvious

WP:POINT. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• The required talk page discussion would have sorted this muddle. That's what talk pages are for. Note the time stamps. Andy's first edit is at 00:01. COI disclosure is almost 4 hours later at 3:53. All Guy had to do was post on the talk page and this would have been dealt with. Given the last two weeks and the ongoing discussions on COI, a simple comment could have dissipated this confusion. As well, much of the discord and discussion of the last weeks has been around the template which asks for discussion on the talk page; it is a known source of contention.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  • The "required talk page discussion" that was initiated and archived out, you mean? Guy (Help!) 16:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Diff, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: No such diff has been provided. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: It's in the original report. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You entered a discussion on the 17th; this began on the 16th? Is that right or am I missing something which is possible? Why not just deal with this confusion on the talk page. I'm not going to engage in snipes with you, Guy. I am suggesting that you might have been able too deal with this on a talk page rather than posting this long notice. There's lots of confusion here given the time stamps. I assume good faith and hope you did this with the best of intentions; I just don't think this is the best way to deal with this given the last two weeks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]
      • While Wikipedia has long seemed to creep towards an "exhaustion of remedies"-like doctrine when it comes to filing complaints on noticeboards, that doctrine comes with an escape valve for actions that would be futile. That is, if we're going to start importing legal doctrines, we aren't gonna do it by halves. As Andy has proved (see the prior discussion links Guy provided above), there is no "discussion" with Andy unless you agree with him. So, yes, coming to ANI is proper. If anything, it's a conservative move: This nonsense should go straight to the Arbitration Committee given the community has proved to be completely impotent when it comes to dealing with Andy's disruption. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Editors who edit for pay or offer commercial services related to Wikipedia have an inherent conflict regarding the COI policies, guidelines, tagging of articles etc. Its in their personal financial interest to weaken the enforcement in general of our rules regarding paid and COI editing, so they should not be removing any COI tags, not just ones related to their own editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This might well be true, but it is also irrelevant to the discussion. - Bilby (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Shame templates are indeed a WP:BLP concern, in that respect I agree with Andy, they state nothing about the quality of the published content. Govindaharihari (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban on removing COI templates and 1 RR. Templates should not be removed without fixing the issues in question. Andy is being pointy and has already been edit warring with respect to this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where your position falls down Doc James, re your comment, Templates should not be removed without fixing the issues in question is that in regards to COI templates the fact that there is an accusation, mostly added without any actual proof, usually a connected username that could be anyone, or someone connected to the subject having edited it or just been accused of editing it does not comfirm that there is any problem with the content and as such there is no clear content issue to correct. The primary problem here is not with Pigs but with the fact that users who dislike involved editing are adding the COI template as a mark of shame, I fully support its removal and any content concerns being identified and corrected, if no actual and specific content concerns have been identified then on a
    WP:BLP the template should be removed on sight, immediately. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • It is not a BLP violation to have a maintenence template on an article notifying that it has been the subject of COI editing. Nor is it a 'mark of shame'. Its a neccessary warning that the content of the article may not be neutral and impartially written. For reference, the relevant part of the policy is
      WP:BLPCAT which applies to templates. The COI template/s do not violate that in any fashion being neutrally written. If your argument is that merely having a COI template indicates that "a person has a poor reputation" then you are going to have a hard time arguing that one without running into a wall of 'Yes, we dont like COI editing, that is why we have to identify it'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]

I am concerned that the issue here is that a precedent could be set that anyone who is a Wikipedian in Residence could somehow be called a "paid editor" and slapped with a COI accusation. Govindaharihari makes a good point too. The effect of a COI "scarlet letter" is chilling, particularly when it interferes with the GLAM work being done by the foundation and many editathon efforts to improve content of Wikipedia. I am unclear what other "COI" that Andy has here, and rather than going after one person, I think the bigger issue needs to be addressed. Montanabw^(talk) 02:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI accusations are frequently used for their chilling effect. It's the Wikipedia equivalent of McCarthyism. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning. On a BLP then the template should be removed on sight, immediately. This applies to any drive-by template, which can be removed if there is no discussion on the talk page, but

WP:BLP requires immediate removal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentsAndy's is removing these templates from articles written by paid editors (who are NOT WiR). These issues are separate from his work as a WiR. IMO these templates should not typically be used on articles by WiR. He is also removing them from articles were there is a talk page discussion regarding the concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they are better removed, have been placed without good reason, especially on

WP:BLP articles, that is a good thing. Adding a COI template on a living persons life story is an attack and should be removed on sight, correct the content if there is a concern, don't add a shame tag that is nothing to do with them.Govindaharihari (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

"He is also removing them from articles were there is a talk page discussion regarding the concerns." The last time you made that false allegation, I asked you to provide a diff of me removing the tag, when there was already a discussion on the talk page that met the requirement to "explain what is non-neutral about the article". This you failed to do, offering only a single case where all that had happened was an editor had been alleged to have a COI. Even before that, I said to you "Feel free to point out any cases where I removed the tag, despite there being a post meeting that requirement on the talk page, and I'll accept that it was disruptive, and revert myself. Otherwise, your

continued disregard of this point is what is disruptive" and you provided no such examples. Can you provide them now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Hawkeye,

WP:BLPCAT is the only part of the BLP policy that applies to maintenence templates. It does not require 'immediate' removal any more than any other article requires it for templates as the template is not overly negative. You would need to make a credible argument that a COI template reflects negatively on the living person. And that's a non-starter since (leaving aside WIR/GLAM etc) articles that have been paid for or have been identified as having been written by someone with a close connection are required to be identified. RE WIR/GLAM, anyone involved in any sort of editing with a COI have little weight in a discussion as to the appropriateness of COI tags in general, as they would of course prefer to not have their articles be marked as being written by someone with a potential conflict. You might as well allow paid editors to dictate what is classed as paid editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:BLPCAT does not apply to maintenance templates, it only applies to navigation templates. But BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, persondata, article titles and drafts and Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. If there is no discussion on the talk page, then the COI template is unsourced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

That is frankly a ridiculous argument and essentially would prevent any COI/connected contributor template being applied to a living person's biography. As none of them have 'sources' as required by our policies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And frankly, if anyone thinks Andy is doing this out of some concern for living people who have biographies, pull the other one. His history includes harrassing someone through their biography, he is and has been for quite a while, heavily involved in making sure Wikidata badly sourced BLP infringing material is shoehorned into wikipedia articles, while simultaneously on wikidata contributing to it not having any sort of policy regarding living people. So no, I find it highly suspicious he suddenly has a concern for living people. As opposed to just wanting to be able to edit articles with a COI under the radar. (To be fair, its not just BLP issues with wikidata that he wants wedged into wikipedia articles, its that entire database clusterfuck of unverified unsourced factoids) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me one of the problems here is people are assuming that the COI tag means the subject of the article has done something wrong. But it doesn't or at least shouldn't. If someone hires people to edit an article on a rival or someone they don't like, there will likely be COI problems on that article. It doesn't mean that the subject did anything wrong. I mean even if a spouse or adult family member on their own volition edits an article on someone or pays someone to do, it's highly questionable if the subject shares any responsibility for it. Heck even in cases of a PR agent or lawyer, it may not always make much sense to place much 'blame' on the subject for it, if they had no idea this person was going to do this, had no desire for them to do it and put a stop on it as soon as they found out. Nil Einne (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (B2C) clearly feels very passionately that the title of the article Sarah Jane Brown is incorrect, but I think he needs to be removed from the RM debate.

• [58] edit summary "Why is this so hard to understand?" is one of several asserting with varying degrees of stridency that Sarah Jane Brown is "NOT HER NAME" (it literally is)
• [59] edit summary "There is zero basis for using Sarah Jane Brown' as the title of this article" hypothesises "Sarah Jane Brown is not obviously her name. The reference from SnowFire shows that her name prior to marrying GB was Sarah Jane Macaulay - that is what is not in dispute, but this does not mean her name after marrying GB became Sarah Jane Brown. By ALL accounts, without exception, her name since her marriage has been and remains, simply Sarah Brown." This is a bizarre attempt to assert that, without any reliable source noting it, she dropped her middle name on marriage, which is not I believe permitted by Scottish law (or as B2C puts it, "British law", which of course does not exist as such).
• [60] edit summary "And the opinion expressed by reliable sources is the only one that matters here, not yours or mine." asserts that because most sources discussing Ms. Brown do nto feel the need to use her full name, thus it is misleading (explicitly and repeatedly stated as a theory by B2C throughout the debate) for us to do so, on the admittedly novel premise that it somehow falsely implies that this is how she is usually known. As if anybody is usually known by the disambiguated title we give them on Wikipedia. A newspaper can use a name that is unambiguous in context, even if globally ambiguous, we clearly can't, which is literally the entire point of the entire never-ending farrago.

Anyway, I think B2C is by now on a path to burnout and undoubtedly shedding way more heat than light on this.Others on the page are equally passionate without the same recourse to hyperbole, and the same need to reply to huge numbers of people. His point is made by now I'd say (including at least one point which is objectively false despite repetition and failure to strike) and does not require further reinforcement. This is very close to

Normally, an article is titled by the best known name of an individual. That's why we have an article on Jack Benny rather than on Benny Kubelsky. Still, it seems a strange thing for an editor to get so worked up about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Sarah Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is taken. So this is about disambiguation, and has been going on for years. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I see his sig "В²C" 79 times on that talk page (not counting hats). I see yours 47 times, although yours is in a lot of different places, for different reasons. Lots of talking "at" going on. If memory serves me right, renaming this article is a perennial topic. He does seem to be
  WP:Bludgeoning the discussion a bit, and catching some grief for it from all sides. I don't see enough that a single admin can block him and the article isn't under WP:DS so anything that went down would have to be a community decision. My preferred solution is for В²C to agree to avoid the RFC altogether until someone closes it. Seriously, by now, I think everyone already knows how he feels so continuing to beat the same horse seems pointless and begs for the community to topic ban him for a few months. One thing we WON'T do is discuss which name is best here at ANI... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Most of my comments on that talk page are !votes in the RfC. No fewer than 22 titles have been listed, most of which have been soundly rejected in multiple prior RMs. That's half of all my comments there. About half the others are responses to direct or indirect questions (e.g. clarifying that, yes, Companies House is a reliable source, and the fact that there are two potential legal frameworks, which have subtly different methods for changing a name. And only one of us is asserting falsely that someone's legal name is not their name, or engaging in bizarre speculation about possible changes of name, with absolutely no actual evidence. That's the issue. There are plenty of argumentative types on that page, as expected given years of failed RMs, but one of them, B2C, is inserting bizarre conterfactuals. Guy (Help!) 17:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose that, after this showed up at
  π, ν) 01:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yes, I'm hearing the whirring of boomerangs. It seems to me that both of them could back away and let someone else fight this battle rather than bringing it here. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange: are you used to cheap knock-off boomerangs, the kind that fly in a straight line? Because, really, that's the only way your analogy really makes much sense. --Calton | Talk 17:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Holy shit, this again? I swear, the Sarah Jane Brown RM debate is like the zombie apocalypse of all RM debates. You cannot kill it; it just keeps coming back. 14 move discussions in 11 years; it's getting silly. --Jayron32 17:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting silly? I'd say we're well past getting. EEng 17:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just change her name to Zarajanovic Braunislav and be done with it. Seriously, though, has anyone thought to contact the subject and ask what her preference is? Her response (if any) would need to be certified by OTRS, but maybe it would break the logjam. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So do your duty! Grit your teeth, go to the current requested move and sprinkle brief support/oppose comments to taste. Uninvolved people are needed. (BMK: See "I wrote to Sarah, care of Gordon Brown, in June 2013. I received no response" at the link.) Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not current on this person - is she still a principal in a PR firm? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Frankly, B2C's comments there are approaching
  WP:CIR status. Are you ready for this? "Sarah Jane Brown is not obviously her name. The reference from SnowFire shows that her name prior to marrying GB was Sarah Jane Macaulay - that is what is not in dispute, but this does not mean her name after marrying GB became Sarah Jane Brown". Yes, that's seriously what he wrote. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Ha - I see that's been quoted above, but frankly it bears repeating as so utterly fucking ludicrous that a topic ban is the least of what we should be considering. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not seeing what's ludicrous about it. Many women when they marry, keep their maiden names (as both of my wives did). Many women, when they marry, drop their middle name, but keep their maiden name as their middle name. Many women take their husband's name but also keep their maiden name becaause they are known by it professionally. My mother, when she married, dropped her first name (which she hated), and started using her middle name as her first name, and her Roman Catholic confirmation name as her middle name. There are many options available, at least here in the US, so unless there is something in English law that requires that a woman keep her middle name and drop her maiden name when she marries, I don't see where B2C's statement is incorrect. Would someone care to educate me? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Beyond My Ken: It's actually Scottish law (not English) that is relevant, and while I'm not very familiar with the latter I'm not aware of any prohibition on changing names in any of the ways you describe. However, culturally in the whole of Great Britain it is very unusual for anyone to change anything other than their surname at marriage so the burden of proof is on the person who is claiming that she did something other than that. This is also far, far from the first time that Born to Cycle has exhibited obsessive behaviour about page titles - see the history of Yogurt for just one example. Thryduulf (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually as far as I can see Scottish Law only allows for a change of surname on marriage. To change given names requires a separate process. Regardless, B2C's theory was pretty bizarre. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at that, see User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Beyond My Ken: from beta.companieshouse.gov.uk: Sarah Jane Brown. That is her name. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Then why do the three charities the article says she's intimately connected with all use "Sarah Brown"? [61]. (Honest question.) You'd think they would know what she wants to be called. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Because that's her name. Her full name is Sarah Jane Brown. B2C is trying, ridiculously, to claim that when she married Brown her middle name mysteriously vanished. Black Kite (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, it did disappear, in reliable secondary sources. Until the last few days, nobody in ten years of discussion on that talk page even produced a single primary source that used her middle name. In any case, her middle name is not widely (if at all) used in reliable secondary sources. Isn't that what our titles are supposed to reflect? In any case, is that such an unreasonable position for many (not just me) to take? --В²C ☎ 21:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, her middle name rarely, if ever, appeared in sources at all. That i the nature of middle names in the UK. They are used only in official records or where it is necessary to publicly disambiguate. In the same way, sources don't parenthetically reference the souse's name, the father's name, the year of birth or whatever, unless it is necessary in order to disambiguate. Exactly the same reason you use for rejecting her full legal name, applies to all the suggested alternatives. This has been pointed out to you, and yet you carry on. Which is why we are here: you are obsessive and you don't seem to care overmuch how you get the result you want. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen it mentioned above (apologies if I've missed it) but B2C was a party to the 2012

I'm aware of B2C's background, and, believe me, I'm not taking a position on this based on B2C - if anything, I'd be inclined to disagree with anything he says. As I said on the talk page, I don't know Sarah Brown from Adam's Off Ox, and I have no dog in this race, but I'm getting at least a whiff of an impression that some people are fighting "Sarah Brown" not because of any particular evidence, but because B2C supports it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that I really don't want to get any deeper into a dispute that has lasted over a decade, which I really don't care about, and in which there are obviously extremely entrenched positions, so I'm bowing out. Have fun! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's all explained. Preferring
  Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is "political correctness overriding usage in reliable sources"—see WT:Article titles#WP:COMMONNAME vs Political correctness. The conflict is due to the fact that several notable people are named Sarah Brown so that title is a DAB page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @Johnuniq and Beyond My Ken: I really don't care what the article is called, and this is not the venue to discuss it. What matters is whether B2C's behaviour is such that sanctions are required. The more I look at the behaviour and previous instances of the less justification I'm seeing for not topic banning him from all discussions about page titles. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I've long felt that B2C's way of approaching article naming issues (doggedly insistent, dogmatic about his interpretation of guidelines, bordering on fanatic) often does more harm than good, and I'm sure I've said I'd support a topic ban on earlier occasions. And I'm saying this as somebody who has probably agreed with B2C as often as I've disagreed with him on on any particular issue we've crossed paths on, and as somebody who generally respects B2C's knowledge and command of policy in these questions. Unfortunately, a topic ban from naming discussions would pretty much mean a complete ban for this editor, since that seems to be the only thing he's interested in. Have we tried a quantitative restriction before? Like for instance: being restricted to one or two comments (of a given maximum length) per naming issue; banned from re-initiating new move requests on articles that have had RMs before...? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sanctions. B2C has put a lot of effort into a complex issue, and deserves credit for it. It's a tough question (disambiguation of the article title from "Sarah Brown" is necessary; the obvious one used by reliable sources seems sexist, while the other ones are rarely used) so some discussion is needed. While B2C may be getting a little heated, they haven't reached the level of needing to be sanctioned for it; they have made no personal attacks on the page, or even close to it, and neither are they monopolizing discussion, all voices are being heard. Note the original poster is the only to bold Vehemently in their opinions on the page, 8 times, and yet is complaining about B2Cs passionate feelings. I personally still think the best option is to write to the article subject and ask her politely to change her first name to Seraphina, to settle the issue ... once and for all! --GRuban (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• disambiguation of the article title from "Sarah Brown" is necessary - I would think that absolute statements like this are the heart of the problem, particularly as many have opined that the current name, being her actual name, is just fine. ValarianB (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Er ... yes. You'll notice the current name is not "Sarah Brown"? --GRuban (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Did you have something resembling a point? --Calton | Talk 06:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really know the background of this particular naming issue, although I'm aware of having seen it on this page before. I squared off with B2C a couple years back at Kim Davis (see all the RMs and MRs noted on that talk page) in which I described his approach as "drag[ging] it through as many venues as possible until enough people get tired of it that it looks like support for [his] position." At the time he maintained a list in his userspace of past move discussions where the right (in his opinion) thing was done only after discussions were re-hashed over and over again, essentially frustrating all of the opposition into conceding just so he would go away. While I do respect B2C's familiarity with the naming guidelines and have sought his opinion on unrelated matters even since the Kim Davis discussions (which I still describe as a clusterfuck) his approach to controversial discussions is quite poor. I also wouldn't want to see him banned from those discussions entirely, so if I were going to suggest a restriction it would be on posting move requests which have already been discussed say in the past two years, i.e. if there has been a move discussion on Sarah Jane Brown in the past two years, B2C may not start a new discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd go with a topic ban that says he may not:

  • Start a requested move for any page that has had any move discussion in the past two years; and
  • Comment on a requested move discussion initiated within 3 months of a requested move discussion for the same page (at any title) in which he commented. This excludes relisted discussions and discussions reopened or restarted after a move review discussion.
  • Make more than three short comments in any single requested move discussion; after these they may make a maximum of 1 short reply per direct request for clarification or similar direct request.

  "Short" means not longer than approximately 150 words (excluding links that directly support the comment). Comments made on other pages and transcluded or linked to in a requested move discussion count towards this word limit.

  Relisting or reopening a discussion does not change the comment or word limits (i.e. it's 3 comments of up to ~150 words per discussion, not per listing).

  Violations would result in a complete topic ban from all requested move discussions, starting at say two weeks with a say 5th violation being indefinite. Violations of a complete topic ban will result in a block of up to the same duration as the ban violated (e.g. a violation of 3-week topic ban would mean a block of up to 3 weeks).

I don't claim these to be perfect, only a starter for discussion. An obvious question is should these limits also apply to move review discussions? Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I just took a read of his userpage based on comments above. He had noted the expiry date of the RM moratorium for this article: clearly it was a case of keep asking until you get the answer you want. He is proud of persisting for years with requests until they are "correct". His examples of great RM closes include moving Chelsea Manning back to Bradley Manning, and moving Westminster clock tower to Big Ben, which is categorically incorrect, as not ony has Big Ben has only ever been the bell, it's now officially the Elizabeth Tower. I think the fixation on moves, the America-centred worldview of some of his hit list, and absolutely never accepting the "wrong" answer, is a defining characteristic. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone feels I'm in violation of any policies or guidelines in anything I do, please bring them up on my talk page. If we can't work them out, then we come here. Right? Isn't that how it's supposed to work? I don't understand why you're starting here. It doesn't feel nice, civil or welcoming to me. Yes, I have opinions. Yes, I'm open about how I think WP can be improved, especially in the area of titles. I explain in great length why I hold the opinions I do. I understand not everyone agrees. Of course. I'm also very open to criticism and suggestions for improvement. But I find this approach to go straight to AN/I to be very confrontational and feels like you're seeing and treating WP, or at least your approach with dealing with me, as a

WP:DR for ideas on how better to deal with this situation, however you perceive it. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 00:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not in favour of word limits, unless we're about to nominate a team of clerks to follow him around. I prefer that he may make one unrestricted comment in any requested move (including the nomination if he is the nominator) or move review, and reply to any question directly asked of him. And while he may not start a new move discussion within two years, he is free to comment if someone else does (under the same one-comment restriction). This allows B2C to give his input (which I think we all more or less agree is valuable) without bludgeoning the process (which is not valuable), and allows for cases where other editors besides B2C perceive a titling issue needing discussion, rather than discussions being repeated over and over again just because B2C didn't get the answer he liked the last time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I stressed that the word limits were approximate was that I had no intention of them being applied strictly. The aim is to encourage concsision, with the requirement that they be "short", with 150 words being a very rough guide to what that means. There would be penalty for 153 words nor for 190 words but 300 would attract one. If others prefer 1 longer comment though then OK, but I don't support unrestricted without some way of avoiding gaming that by continually adding material to the single comment. 14:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)

By "one unrestricted comment" I meant for that to be whatever he could say in a single edit, maybe excepting very basic copyediting or repairing obvious errors in his single comment or reply. Adding material to that single comment would violate the restriction. At any rate there doesn't seem to be any overwhelming desire for any action here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, short of notification about this discussion on AN/I, my user talk page is devoid of anyone approaching me about any issues with my behavior on Sarah Jane Brown, and I've been trying to help get a community consensus solution there for weeks. I started with a simple RM, was convinced by others that a multi-choice approach would work better, so I closed the first RM (per obvious consensus) and started the current multi-choice one, the format of which was altered by another editor, and which looked promising in terms of finally identify a consensus-supported title there. That said, I recognized I was no longer helping and backed off days ago, before this AN/I was even filed, as the history on that page shows. My specialty is title policy and especially resolving controversial RMs, all of which is explained on my user page and linked FAQ, which unfortunately leads to me being involved in many disagreements. I see a lot of familiar user names above - people who have disagreed with me in the past - not sure how fair it is to have them judge my behavior here, especially with nobody first trying to reach out to me on my user talk page. I understand people are frustrated about this, but the fact remains that there are large numbers of editors who are strongly opposed to the current title - it's clearly not a stable title supported by community consensus. If 10 years of controversy doesn't make that clear, I don't know what can. But right now what we need is ideally a panel of three unininvolved editors to review the lengthy discussion there and decide what title would work best. Thank you. --В²C ☎ 20:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BLUDGEON. Next, you could make a pledge to avoid that talk page completely until the RFC has completed. I think it is safe to say that everyone already knows your opinion on, well, everything, so a lack of participation on your part is not likely to prevent your opinions from being noted. If you made that pledge and lived up to it, sanctions would be moot. I've been debating stepping in unilaterally, so now is a good time to make that pledge. Finally, Guy, I wasn't trying to pick on you, just saying it was hard to tell by count of edits alone. You have been busy, but even I noticed it was all over the place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Again, I had already chosen to stay away days before this AN/I was initiated, and have done so. That said, I still feel there is room for me to clarify my (updated) position about the dearth of reliable sources using her middle name since her marriage to GB (it turns out it's not zero after all but the first (AFAIK) source was brought to that talk page after 10 years of controversy just in the last few days), which is key to the opposition of the current title. Some people feel there is a big difference between zero vs one or two primary sources (still no usage of this name in reliable secondary sources as far as I know). However, if a pledge to avoid the talk page is really felt necessary I'm fine with it. It's not that important. So pledged. And I'll review BLUDGEON; thanks. --В²C ☎ 01:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the 2012
      Article titles and capitalisation arbitration case: Born2cycle's editing on the disputed pages and related subjects has hampered efforts at resolution, specifically by excessive responses and not following the spirit of WP:BRD. You mean that wasn't a clue? --Calton | Talk 06:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• I would support the kind of limited ban suggested by User:Thryduulf. If nothing else it's easier and less disruptive than having to repeatedly slog through pages of discussion and periodically place RM moratoriums on the affected pages. ~Awilley (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there even such a thing as a "middle name" in Scottish law? Or English law, for that matter? Aren't we simply dealing with the rather common case of somebody making false assumption because of American cultural bias? As far as I can see, "Sarah" and "Jane" are both given names. Neither is a "middle name", a concept the Americans seem to have invented as late as the 19th century. --Hegvald (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, most people have more than one given name, but they usually (tough by no means always) go by only the first of them. Full names are used on official documents, sometimes on bank cards, and rarely in informal speech. There are notable exceptions, such as John Mark Ainsley (top bloke), but for the most part only one given name is in everyday use. And, needless to say, parenthetical references to careers, years of birth, maiden names or spouses, not at all. B2C is demanding that because the real world does not solve Wikipedia's problem the exact way Wikipedia does, so Wikipedia must fix it in a different way that the real world doesn't. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I am
  WP:TROUT JzG for filing this, because it is a content dispute, not a behaviour issue. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

B2C does very little on Wikipedia other than obsessively pursue article renaming often over numerous requests spanning a decade or more. That's the issue. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what? What you call "obsessively pursue article renaming" I see as "bravely pursue consensus-supported titles". As my user page declares, we all choose our roles on WP and I choose as my primary task the area of title stability. So I'm drawn to long-unresolved cases, and I try to figure how best to resolve them. In this case I started a few weeks ago by proposing what I thought was a neutral title that I thought had a good chance of being approved. Within a few days it was clear I was wrong, so I withdrew the RM, but the responses indicated that that "wife of" had more support than I had expected it would have, and support for the current title was limited to only one or two participants. So then I started the new multi-choice RM based on a table, another user proposed another format, and so it went. Regardless of the outcome, please be assured my only goal is to facilitate finding a title that is most agreeable to the community. If that turns out to be SJB, so be it. All I seek is a clear finding of consensus, or as much as is reasonably possible, for some title. Anyway, because of my focus I tend to get into content disputes, and a considerable numbers that disagree with me. You know, if you take a stand on an issue that initially has about half the community support and half the community opposing, you're likely to piss off a few. Hence the bravely part of what I do. Almost everyone commenting here is involved and in disagreement with me on this title, and really should recuse themselves for this AN/I. Anyway, regardless of whether Sarah and Jane are first and middle names, or two given names, she's virtually never referred to as Sarah Jane in reliable secondary sources. Perhaps never. She's essentially unknown and unrecognizable as "Sarah Jane". Using this in the title makes no sense and is misleading. This is why there is such strong opposition to the current title; surely this is understandable. As to the "wife of" disambiguation, this is how almost all reliable sources refer to her. It is a violation of

WP:PILLAR last I checked, to judge the title inappropriate without objective basis found in policy, guidelines or usage in sources. And I don't see any such basis in any of the objections to this title - I hope the closer takes this into account. --В²C ☎ 01:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I think this makes sense. This is a volunteer project, and everyone is entitle to spend as much or as little time in any one area as they like. Some people do nothing but vandal fighting, others are WikiGnomes, and evidently B2C likes to spend his time in the

Sarah Brown (born 1963) or Sarah Brown (nee Macaulay) may be such a stable title. If/when the current discussion closes as no consensus, it just means we'll all be back again in a year or two to resume the argument once again, as happened so often with yogurt and New York. Anyway, all that aside, I still do'nt see anything out of line in B2C's behaviour... we get that you don't want the RM at Sarah Brown to take place, but please do that by discussing the issue, not the person. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• KarimKoueider (talk · contribs)
• matthew_hk (talk · contribs)
• MatthewS. (talk · contribs) (not related to matthew_hk)
• David J Johnson (talk · contribs)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs)
• talk · contribs
  )
• UBI Banca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Crédit Agricole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Midea Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Orange Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Vodafone Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Telecom Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Egyptian Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Visa Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ubisoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Vivendi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• HTC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 125#KarimKoueider

The user keep on ignoring the use of infobox parameter, changing Public / private/ listed to legal form, Arabic word (on Orange Egypt), self-revert with wrong foreign grammar foreign word (French S.A.E. in Orange Egypt). I believed that he failed to properly communicate and understand MoS and infobox/doc and make constructive edit, and the edit war on Orange Egypt must be stopped. Matthew_hk tc 03:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No edit war on Orange Egypt, MatthewS. (talk · contribs) and I reached a conclusion on my talk page about correct type formatting. This user is abusing power to try and put himself above others when it comes to knowledge KarimKoueider (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no edit war, just a misunderstanding and difference of opinions about capitalization but it was resolved. French "Société anonyme égyptienne" isn't capitalized in French but should be treated as a business term in the English language and thus be capitalized in the English context. MatthewS. (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way the edit on infobox on Crédit Agricole (Crédit Agricole Group) to Crédit Agricole S.A. (which the whole foundation of Crédit Agricole Group, and its reverse corporate structure that regional bank of Crédit Agricole Group owns Crédit Agricole S.A. was clearly written on the article) or removing UBI Banca (legal name Unione di Banche Italiane) from trading name parameter in the infobox is constructive, and the consequential "communication" on my talk page. Matthew_hk tc 03:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you put another legal name if the company only has one name for trading, legality and nativity ? KarimKoueider (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to remind you that you started with the unproductive communication on your talk page even though I started my question in a very civil manner KarimKoueider (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Give an answer to my response you coward" doesn't seem very civil to me. Jdcomix (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my statement I stated that "I started my question in a very civil manner" on his talk page concerning

Credit Agricole but was met with a very defensive response. I am sorry that I replied in a cruel manner KarimKoueider (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

it is not the case for UBI Banca for your alleged " Why would you put another legal name if the company only has one name for trading", the logo only contain "UBI Banca" not the legal name Unione di Banche Italiane . Trading name does not mean the name appear in the stock market, but the name that the company do business as. (See this article). your limited understanding in English and personal attack in your talk page, please explain to admin that they are constructive to wikipedia. Matthew_hk tc 03:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My "limited understanding in English" got me a spot at one of America's finest educational institutions (I got an 8 on the IELTS with a perfect reading and speaking score), the correct trading name for the bank is UBI Banca Group KarimKoueider (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) This all looks like a rather

LAME edit war with article talk pages not being used and unconstructive user talk page discussions happening instead. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

add Midea Group, told to him in these messages which was blanked, but still remove the maintenance template from the article without dealing the problem that was specified in the tag nor leaving any word in edit summary again; he was warned again and again by other person on similar issues(User talk:KarimKoueider#Removing maintenance tags on 17 January, User talk:KarimKoueider#January 2018 regarding infobox) Matthew_hk tc 05:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dont usually check my messages, please post on my talk page so we can discuss it KarimKoueider (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fix the list of user in this multi-article, 1 to multi-user "conflicts". Matthew_hk tc 20:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst not involved in the current dispute, I have had problems with

Visa Inc page with unexplained deletion of pic and logo size, also on other various articles concerning unnecessary changes to logo sizes. It does seem that this user is making a mass of minor, not required, changes to numerous company pages. It really is time for juvenile "edits" to stop. David J Johnson (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

As per your request, I did state reasons for changes and you shut it down by saying something along the lines of "it doesnt look good". That's just your opinion KarimKoueider (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And why did you remove my warning comments from your Talk page? A further glance at this page does confirm that many editors are concerned by your actions. Your various logo changes have been not constructive and do not contribute to page design. Nor did I say "it doesn't look good", that is your invention. It does seem that you are on a mission to change many company/business pages to your own version, which is frequently incorrect. David J Johnson (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even checked my talk page?, all our discussions and your warnings are still there, you are not being truthful. You said and I quote "There is no standard for logos on wikipedia, whatever fits the layout" What if my definition of fitting the "Layout" is different than yours ? KarimKoueider (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per

WP:OWNTALK, even if it did happen there's generally no point asking someone why they removed messages from their own talk page. Since they are allowed to do so, just take it as a sign the message was received and move on. Nil Einne (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Nil Einne:, for the case of KarimKoueider's own talk page, the problem is, he removed the message and did the same thing again that was specified in the message, and was warned again by another person for the same issue in another article, which keep on loop back to the cycle, especially on unnecessary change in infobox (image size parameter, wikilink (overlink) and sometimes even boldly wrong). I have no comment on other people on not replying the conversation and let the archive bot achieve the thread . Matthew_hk tc 14:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew hk:, stop spreading wrong information and lies. I havent gone about adjusting images and logos ever since David J Johnson warned me about them and we had a discussion on it. You seem to be lying your way to try to make me seem like some sort of troll. Nobody has had a problem with me concerning logos and images after the warnings I received. You started this section claiming I was edit warring on Orange Egypt while the other party acknowledged it was a misunderstanding and a discussion took place. You are completely clueless at this point regarding my activity with other users. KarimKoueider (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew hk: You're missing my point. It does no matter whether the editor removed warnings from their talk page. If they continued behaviour that they were warned about, that may be a problem, depending in whether or not the behaviour is really wrong etc. But them removing the warning is still not a problem. If the editor denies they received a warning or says they didn't read it or states they stopped as soon as they were warned; the removed warning could easily be relevant evidence. Especially since as I said, the removal is generally a sign that they did read it. But the removal itself is still not a problem.

Incidently, having looked into the details I don't understand what removals are even being referred to. From what I can tell, the only content KarimKoueider removed from their talk page was this [62]. One is a note on indenting and signing. KarimKoueider indenting and signing is not what is being discussed here and seems fine anyway. The other is notification of an orphaned NFCC image. KarimKoueider uploading NFCC images inappropriately is also not a point of contention in this discussion.

@David J Johnson:'s warnings are still there and never seem to have been removed User talk:KarimKoueider#January 2018 & User talk:KarimKoueider#February 2018. Note there are two sections with the title February 2018, User talk:KarimKoueider#February 2018 2 so you need to make sure you look at the right one.

Nil Einne (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out part of my reply, see below for explanation. Nil Einne (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Thank you very much for your honesty, I am happy that there are some good editors out there in the community KarimKoueider (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that this discussion has led to the "discovery" of minor mistakes and not a single light was shun on any of the constructive edits I have done. e.g.

It is still not clear to me if this user has some actual financial COI or if they are just very interested in business.

They have not acknowledged or addressed the fairly obvious COI at Melouky as far as I can see.

Per their edit count, they rarely use Talk pages and when they do it tends to be along the lines of this: ...Your replies have a disgusting tone of superiority and narcissism... and this You are wrong about (X)...Stop reverting everything I do thinking you're some sort of know it all...

If they are here in good faith to improve our articles about businesses especially in the mediterranean basin (which would be great), this is not a promising approach. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: We have discussed this on the COIN page before, I truly am wanting to improve business articles and have not been paid by anyone or entity for any edit I do on this page. I have learned a lot from you and truly thank you. Sometimes I just get annoyed when editors who have some superiority decisions revert my edits without contacting me about it first. KarimKoueider (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one owes you or me or anybody the obligation to discuss reverts with them first. You have not addressed the fairly obvious COI at Melouky yet. I am not sure why you are here yet. I do know that you are alienating everyone. Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already have addressed it if you even bothered to go to the Melouky deletion page. This just shows how toxic this community is. I probably wont edit again KarimKoueider (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

so you did, a few minutes before you wrote that note. (diff) Yes I did miss it as I don't track WP by the minute. That is the definition of bad faith responding.Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I replied on the Melouky article at 02:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC), you posted your comment at 02:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC), 10 minutes before your comment I had replied. If you would have checked before your comment, you wouldnt have been rude with the "fairly obvious COI" statement. KarimKoueider (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you maintain this combative behavior your time here is going to continue to be unpleasant for you and everyone else. That is the bed you are making. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Here is part of the timeline of the problem, using removal of maintenance tag as example, i have no problem people remove talk page message as a sign of read, but i am concerned on read and ignore warning and keep doing the same thing:

• Posted warning by me regarding removal of maintenance tag in Midea Group (Special:Diff/820393531)
• Message got removed (Special:Diff/820401634)
• Did the same thing on removal of tag in Midea Group (Special:Diff/820680421)
• Did the same thing on removal of tag in Egyptian Exchange (Special:Diff/820995021)
• Got reverted by Jytdog and was told in edit summary "do not remove maintenance tags" (Special:Diff/820995186)
• Did again (Special:Diff/820997413)
• Received warning from Jytdog on talk (Special:Diff/820998027)

For the issues in infobox (image parameter, type of company, trading name, name) need time to isolate one by one and present in a timeline view, and more or less some are controversial but constructive edit that did go to the process of talk page discussion. Matthew_hk tc 02:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the |type= alone. On top of my message that società per azioni as part of the proper noun should be capped as S.p.A./Società per Azioni, in Italian language (may be in English also, as "per" just equal to the grammar of not capping "of/by/the" in English ), but no need to cap it as type of company, i already told him the usage of the |type=:

• My message (Special:Diff/820353751)
• Message got removed (see also above on Special:Diff/820401634)
• Edit war or revert undo back and forth with other user for S.A.E. in Orange Egypt, Vodafone Egypt and Telecom Egypt, with good sign of talk page discussion
• Seem realize the use of |type=, some article got the right Public/private/listed (or similar type by ownership) treatment (
  WP:COIN thread listed above. Personally hybrid is more practical, as Publicly traded coop, or Listed state-controlled enterprise, Publicly traded trust company
  existed, as well as Public/Listed S.A., private S.A., subsidiary S.A..

—Matthew_hk tc 02:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the fantasy edit war on Orange Egypt, Vodafone Egypt and Telecom Egypt. If you and other editors of higher ranking come to a serious conclusion on the type field of company inboxes, I will be more than happy to fully oblige with the decision KarimKoueider (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First I must apologise to @Matthew hk: as I didn't look far back enough. (I got confused and thought I was seeing all contribs to the talk page.) This edit [63] does show removal of a bunch of warnings I missed including from Matthew_hk. Although having looked again this time definitely seeing all edits, I still don't see the removal of any comments from David J Johnson.

Anyway I'm not really that interested in getting into the wider issue of the rights and wrongs of this dispute. I only really entered into it to point out there is rarely any reason to ask someone why they removed a warning from their talk page. Since it's allowed per OWNTALK, it's not likely to be a fruitful thing to discuss and instead risks distracting from the issue at hand. In other words, concentrate on any alleged poor behaviour, especially if that behaviour came after the editor was asked to cut it out. (And removing warnings is not normally poor behaviour.)

I would strongly suggest that each party consider their behaviour. As someone mentioned above, while quickly notifying someone on their talk page is often useful, wider discussion about any disputed edit should take place on article talk pages and it's the responsibility of everyone involved in the dispute to make that discussion happen. (If you were able to resolve the dispute on someone's talk page, that's fine but if there is still a dispute an empty talk page is never a good sign.) Also I'm seeing accusations of vandalism. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this dispute, none of it seems to fall under our definition WP:vandalism, so such accusations should not be made.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KarimKoueider, |type= was already specified in Template:Infobox company/doc, and you have three contradict versions (by ownership, by incorporation form/legal form, and lastly hybrid) Matthew_hk tc 02:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who introduced the hybrid on Eni, I just followed what you did because it made sense KarimKoueider (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the contradict versions on the value that put in |type=, was last observed in

joint stock company instead of S.A., but the redirect was not tagged by redirect maintenance template at that time) to S.A. (corporation). However, if he really resolved with other user that |type= with primarily meant for type of company by ownership, entire edit was not really necessary except the removal of depreciated logo caption.) Matthew_hk tc 04:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Any admin looking at this discussion should also check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melouky where KarimKoueider is now advocating the deletion of a blatant advertising article which they originated! In this respect the concerns on this user's Talk page seem relevant. Regarding Nil Einne's comment on Talk page warnings, it has long been considered that warnings should not be deleted. I also concede that my statement on "warnings" wrongly gave the impression that I was referring to my own to this user.David J Johnson (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

regarding vandalism warning that i gave , may be selecting disruptive editing in Twinkle is a better option, but if a user just for infobox parameters, had been messaged and was try to resolve the unnecessary |type= and |image= changes, giving vandalism warning after these unsuccessful conversation, seem not in a level of misused of template canned message. Matthew_hk tc 12:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been pinged here, so I will add my own two cents. Please keep in mind that this annotation are my personal opinion and feelings, to be taken into consideration by the closing administrator. I don't want it to branch out into a discussion of any kind, and will avoid replying to comments regarding it, unless utterly necessary.

I've only come in contact with the user in question due to them changing the |type= parameter and the styles of their legal appendixes on Ubisoft and Vivendi to have them fit what they felt is correct. This is not a terrible crime, just a misunderstanding which had quickly been reverted. The issue, however, then stemmed from the user insisting that their versions were correct, or at least correcter than the previous ones (in these cases, mine), and as such purposelessly forging an edit war. My talk page was consulted, wherefore I attempted to explain why they were wrong, given guidelines and the template documentation. However, the issue presisted through further edits (as outlined by Matthew_hk above) and across various pages; I had also tracked down some pages they edited to post-fix what they had incorrectly inserted or changed, given the reasoning I presented, some of which were also (partially) reverted by said user.

To me, this shows a clear lack of understanding: Despite spoon-feeding reasons and guidelines not to pursue such edits, the same edits continued, and I was told to be presenting myself as superior to them, a claim obviously taken from thin air. Not that this was the only case either, it can be observed on talk pages of other users they have interacted with, even the dicussion above shows that they believe that they have to be more intelligent due to a test they had apparently passed quite well. What if I told you I'm currently attending one of the best univiersities in Europe? Correct, I wouldn't care either. You could have a doctorate in Wikipediaing, yet you can still not place yourself over basic rules of a community as Wikipedia.

As such, I will need to say that a block or punishment of sort is not warranted for this user as long as they learn to accept that

✉) 18:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Quick reply and probably my final reply on this discussion.

1. Ill take warnings more seriously.
2. Ill discuss any possible errors or opinions on the wiki pages' talk section.
3. I will only adjust company "Logo" or "Images" on pages that are obviously disrupting the layout.
4. I will open a discussion specifically on the "troubled" type field and opinions for and against the incorporation tag (as there are a lot of other wiki users who put the type of incorporation instead of ownership type).
5. I am sorry if I personally attacked any user, that was not my intent. It was also not my intent to display a "superiority complex" but that was the sense I got from a lot of editors who I reached out to.
6. As for users Matthew_hk and David J Johnson, this isn't a witch-hunt to try and prove me wrong on every edit I do. I hope we can have a peaceful end to this discussion.
7. I was hoping the Melouky page would gain traction with other users to insert more reliable and independent information but the Egyptian Wiki community seems very small.
8. I never did, never will, ever accept any form of payment from any person or entity to edit. I do this as a hobby and to improve other readers wiki experience of a free encyclopedia.

And a small reply to Lordtobi, I only brought up my university standing as Mattew_hk mentions a 7 on his IELTS score yet insults my understanding of english by stating that I have a "Limited Understanding" of the language. Nobody has the right to question my understanding of a language that I primarily edit for. I did not talk about my university standing to "show off".

Thank You for your time KarimKoueider (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for your response. The points you want to resolve resemble well what has come up as significant elements for the discussion ending up here. If you stick to these points, I think you are on a good way of integrating yourself into the Wikipedia community, so it is definetly a step in the right direction. I will opt-out of the discussion at this point, as I don't think I have any more to say. If the discussion is ruled in your favor, know that I am always open for questions that might come up regarding guidelines.

✉) 19:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@JzG: used G5 to delete at least 4 articles:

• Aisha Praught-Leer · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• Alejandra Ortega · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• Alex Rose (athlete) · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• Cisiane Lopes · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]

These were created by

The two articles that have not been restored do not have an archive available. The only source for a jumping off point for those subjects exists in the content that JzG and all other administrators who work the Undeletion board are overtly refusing to take action on. I've been away for two days, nobody has lifted a finger in that time. Userfy. I will take it from there.

So I know I am fighting a losing battle by opposing one of the untouchable leadership, but I am doing what is right here. G5 should not have been used. JzG should not have done the sabotage. JzG should have responded to the requests to usurfy this content long ago. Whatever minor offense SvG committed, I have seen no evidence of it and I have looked at hundreds of his articles. But the decision to ban him has taken on a life of its own. JzG and other users should be prevented from using G5 or any other speedy functions to delete the content. Any content they deleted should be restored, at least to draft. If there is a problem with the content, we have a process to fix it, AfD. And even though you disagree with an idea, stop doing things in secrecy. You can see who are legitimate involved editors on a subject. Try notifying us. It takes a lot less work to find users like us than it does to find a coherent list of what has actually been deleted. I don't know how many other editors are involved in this content removal. Speaking for myself, if I know about a problem in my area of expertise, I will fix it. I don't really appreciate being used like a trained monkey to fix things, but my goal is to have good content. This secrecy, backroom conversations and speedy deletions are used strategically to evade people like me. The goal is to vindictively remove SvG content and the public be damned. Those users need to take a time out. Take a chill pill or whatever is a good retort. You have to remember what wikipedia is about. All this backroom crap is not it. We have a public face. Look there. Trackinfo (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the result of a community discussion, SvG was indeffed, so you're claiming that the community is vindicative concerning SvG? I'd rather say that its patience had been depleted. And what's with "cabal", "sabotage", "untouchable leadership", the demand for userfication, and so on? When you use language like that, I'm almost automatically inclined to reject your complaint as being extremely biased. I'm not sure if you haven't crossed the boundary of

WP:NPA concerning JzG. Admins are answerable for their actions, but they are not required to put up with abuse such as you've just laid on him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

No comment on the G5's but your statement "Whatever minor offense SvG committed, I have seen no evidence of it and I have looked at hundreds of his articles" makes me question your thoroughness. I looked at one SvG article (another editor brought up the deletion) and found an obvious BLP violation in the four sentence version SvG put into article space. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done in secret but in a discussion further up the page [71] Legacypac (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed a bunch of SvG pages left in Draft and found them sourced extremely poorly and containing exactly the types of errors that lead to draftifying en mass. Better to start over - or for those obscure country handball players from 30 years ago no one knows anything meaningful about - don't recreate even if they were in some Olympic event. Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Whatever minor offense SvG committed" Uh oh, check #Sander.v.Ginkel above and the block log. Is the OP suggesting that the indefinite block was for some minor offense, and now JzG is being vindictive? That is absurd so please reword to account for reality. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "minor offense" is in fact getting caught for sockpuppetry at two different Wikipedias. The Banner talk 11:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think I've ever heard of
  WP:ANI as being a backroom before. Blackmane (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Just think how much smoke would be generated by 7,328 people puffing on cigars as they make their deals! Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the speakeasy! Blackmane (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, Delete is the LAST answer to a problem, not the first. All of SvG's athletics articles were checked by other editors, including SFB and myself. Some of those other editors turned out to be socks. Turn the articles back to draft and let legitimate editors have another shot at fixing a problem. I'm not hard to find. Delete, G5 without allowing usurfy, is effectively salting THE SUBJECT. SvG's work was sloppy, but it was the starting legwork to give other editors a place to hang additional information. I know Aisha Praught-Leer has been updated since SvG went away, so erasing that subject because SvG made the first edit is justified how? I believe I added to Alex Rose as well. So why is SvG's originating the article relevant now? Why punish us? Why punish the subject? Why punish the public by censoring legitimate content? The only explanation is your cumulative vindictiveness against what should be a historical wiki account who hasn't made a legitimate edit in well over a year. Trackinfo (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC) −[reply]

• We've had the mass deletions before, whether for sockpuppettry, suspected copyvio, or inaccurate translations. In each case a large number of articles were deleted which should not have been, despite efforts to save them. Certainly in such cases if an editor without involvement in the original situation and with a good record here has been willing to speak for or work on the articles, we have at least tried not to delete them, or at the very least have undeleted them on request. To insist on keeping them deleted by using speedy deletion over the objections of a respected editor is in my opinion not correct. (I have lists of a few dozen myself from such sweeps to restore that I have never been able to get to). Using G5 in a disputed situation is incorrect just as using any speedy in a disputed situation is incorrect.

The view that some of these articles are trivial and should therefore not be restored is an opinion--indeed, I personally would not work on restoring Olympic athletes with no other information. Preventing someone who does want to do the work from doing it , when the articles pass the currently accepted notability standard for athlete is an overuse of authority. (I personally think there's a good argument for changing our guideline here, but any admin action must follow the accepted guideline in place, whether or not we individually like it). In fact, looking at the examples of Aisha Praught-Leer and Rose listed above, they are not in the least in this category, and would I think pass any reasonable notability standard.

Nobody can think I am in favor of tolerating editing such as that by SVG, but there is still in dealing with them a certain necessary level of respect for each other, and no one admin should be permitted to act unilaterally in this situation. This is not a matter for joking about. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: what we have here is a very specific set of circumstances. The articles were moved to Draft, by consensus. Most of these were deleted under CSD#G13 (SvG has something like 22,000 deleted article starts in his log). Some - not a few, either - were moved back into mainspace by one of two sockpuppets. The more egregious was MFriedman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sock of SvG himself, which used edit summaries like "no SvG issues" or "checked", playing the role of an independent editor reviewing articles that had been deemed not to meed standards. The less egregious (and simpler) was Beatley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a ban-evading sock of Slowking4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). So after discussion I deleted those articles meeting the following criteria:

• Created by SvG and passed through the process of rejection and move to Draft
• Moved out of Draft by one of the two socks
• No substantive edits, so that if they had remained in draft they would have been eligible for G13 - by no substantive edits I mean nothing other than removing deprecated infobox parameters and adding cats, the kind of semi-automated or automated edit that is only done by virtue of being in mainspace.

I don't think Trackinfo was happy with the original removal of these articles to Draft, and he's sure as hell not happy with this cleanup, but I feel I shuold point out that at no point did he actually fix the issues of poor sourcing and

WP:NOTDIR

that led to the original move to Draft. There may be a few errors, for which I would of course apologise and correct, but I do not recall seeing Trackinfo's name against a single edit after the move back from Draft to mainspace by socks.

Trackinfo has now taken this to multiple venues including Facebook. He does not seem to like the answer he gets, each time. I'm not surprised: he's a victim of SvG's deceit, probably more than the rest of us. But this is abusive editing and a cleanup activity discussed in the relevant venues. Many of these articles had sources that did not even contain the information they were purported to contain, there is a reason they were rejected from mainspace. I don't think there's much resistance to providing the deleted text for a clean-start for any article Trackinfo identifies, unfortunately his reaction tot hat has been to demand wholesale restoration of the entire bunch because cabal, which doesn't really help anyone who wants to help him. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the accusations, JzG. I do not have a Facebook account. I'm an obstinate old man, I do not do social media. My entire discussion of this issue has been here, escalating as your administrator buddies continue to back your egregious deletions through their lack of action. During the period of checking SvG articles I did not roll back a single one and found no cause to. Rather than assuming and accusing, show me one where I was wrong. In my contact, SvG created stub articles about lesser known Olympic athletes. When I found they matched the source, usually sports-reference, for the presentation of the basic facts, there was no reason to delete or send them back. I added to most of them as I checked them, a slow, laborious process. On Project Athletics, we have a pretty good layout of blue links in all of our recent Olympic and World Championship results. Those SvG stubs are a big part of that, positive contributions, but there are a bunch of good people following up on those start up stubs, adding little links or entire subjects that help lead others to follow up information. Each deletion wipes out all that cumulative information from a lot of minds. Knowledge. Idiot deletionists do not seem to understand, when you destroy content, you are erasing knowledge. It might be able to be found again, but the communal information is lost, possibly never to return, because a roaming contributor thinks their addition is already saved on the article. Praught was such a stub article at first, except she was involved in a heroic act with a fallen athlete and made the final in the Olympics with a lot of coverage. Since then she was also in the final of the World Championships, has the Jamaican and probably Caribbean records and got married to a notable athlete causing her hyphenated name. And I almost forgot, she found her dad. Her article went from SvG's stub to at least three paragraphs. I'm doing this off the top of my head, so she's not exactly off the radar as was a lot of SvG's work. Rose I believe qualified for the World Championships legitimately, rather than being his domestic token, also multiple paragraphs now. Your blind destruction is inappropriate to the current state of those articles, or what they were before this week. With YOUR record of blind destruction, YOUR obvious irresponsibility, how can we mere mortal editors check the damage YOU have done to other articles, without the ability to see them? If you think you are doing such a good job, try a little daylight and prove it. I'll bet I'll find other articles that could and should be saved. I don't think you'll find any, but certainly a whole lot more than any bad piece of SvG information I let onto mainspace. Trackinfo (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again and again. I see this tactic again and again. Reyk _YO! 10:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo, I apologise for misidentifying you as the person complaining in the Wikipedia Weekly facebook group. Anyone here who looks at that group may understand the reason for the mistake, but I accept your assurance. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it would be controversial if these articles were restored on an individual basis. Lada Kozlíková was created in 2013 for example, and has plenty of edits from other users; it shouldn't ever be retroactively deleted as G5. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most of those are bot and semi-automated edits. I moved it back to

WP:RS, both are directories and both look user-edited. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not criticising the decision to delete them, I just don't think it would be controversial if I decide to fish an article out of SvG's deleted contributions. Provided I check it myself for unsourced statements. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Especially if they go back to Draft for cleanup or if you fix them yourself. If I deleted them, please feel free, or if you're uncomfortable due to

WP:WHEEL concerns, leave a list on my Talk and I'll do it. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Guy, the path is simple, if you choose to be cooperative instead of resistive. MFriedman, the sock, moved a bunch of articles from draft to mainspace. As a sock he didn't have the right to do that. So put the stuff back in draft. Its like hitting the undo button. Us mere mortal editors can see what is there and deal with it, AS WE DID OTHER SIMILAR ARTICLES. G5 deletion destroys the content from our perspective. Did you notice how quickly the above article was restored to mainspace? Trackinfo (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that they have mainly been G13d. As in: deleted. Over 20,000 of them. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with DGG and don't really understand what the problem is. If editors have expressed a willingness to work on the articles, I don't see why we can't give them resonable time, e.g. 6 months or 1 year to do so. If these articles were only re-draftified a few days ago, I don't see how they can already be classified as abandoned. The fact that they were draftified longer ago, then incorrectly moved back by socks is largely irrelevant to whether or not they are abandoned. You can't fault others for not working on articles which were not drafts at the time. Or to put it a different way how can a draft have been abandoned if it was not actually a draft for most of that time? For any articles which were still drafts after last time and never moved back, it's probably fair if these are deleted since 4? years or more suggests no one is going to get to these. To be fair, I don't think Trackinfo has helped their case by downplaying what SvG did or by suggesting that these articles were largely fine, but the fact that Trackinfo hasn't approached this well is no excuse for classifying stuff as abandoned drafts when we have no evidence they have been abandoned since they were only re-draftified a few days ago and editors have expressed a willingness to work on them. If evidence emerges that editors are not properly checking these articles, e.g. leaving in BLPvios or copyright problems, then this should be dealt with when it happens. Nil Einne (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There isnt a problem, Trackinfo knows where DRV is. We are not going to re-litigate the SvG articles being deleted for the nth time. If Trackinfo wants a copy of any of the deleted articles, it has been offered to them. If they want to contest the deletion, they know where DRV is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Trackinfo wants a copy of any of the deleted articles, it has been offered to them I don't seen an offer. I don't have access to even the two specified articles at the top of this "incident" report. Offer accepted. Where are they? There are about 2,000 athletics articles I cannot determine their fate en masse because the linkage was, to steal the phraseology from above "nuked." I have been criticized recently for calling deletion with terms related to destruction. Obviously the perpetrators of this destruction understand what they are doing. They shouldn't be unlinked was said above. The list I gave JzG on his talk page over a week ago, the only organized list of these problem articles related to athletics, showed all red links. They were unlinked. @Sillyfolkboy: showed a later, partial list where the majority those were in fact in mainspace. My goal is to have all legitimate articles in mainspace. I don't care who created them, I care about providing content for the public. We have the World Championships starting in a week, I care about future editors having a place to hang additional content without having to go through the additional research and effort to create each article anew. With the randomization of the attack done by JzG, I have no idea what articles got "nuked" and which were left. Frankly, I don't know which of these articles were checked by the sock MFriedman and which were checked by legitimate editors including myself. If MFriedman was bad, revert his actions, take the stuff back to draft and let the rest of us legitimate editors check the work. That does not equate with "nuke."

The reason I brought this forward as an incident is because JzG went beyond any mandate by 1) failing to restore an article he deleted on the request of a legitimate editor and 2) he consciously took his time to deliberately remove any linkage to these articles he "nuked." That is sabotage against the subject of these articles. The reason I charged Cabal is because I have made this issue quite present before administrators on several different pages. JzG is a self admitted rogue administrator but the other administrators are backing one of their own through their inaction. That is the "good old boys network" at play. Trackinfo (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo: Please read Wikipedia:Rouge admin. Tiderolls 19:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As of the time I wrote that, JzG has a user box announcing that fact on his user page. I just went with it.Trackinfo (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply attempting to illustrate the complex relationship between perception and understanding. Tiderolls 20:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some incorrect assumptions underpin this complaint. The pages removed were not something future editors could handlg their hat on. They were poorly sourced guesswork. The most recent numing were creations of an admitted sock puppet in violation of his block. We can't encourage that behavior by saying "oh well" There was plenty of time before thousands of pages were G13'd.

WP:TNT applies. Any editor is free to just start the topics they think need covering. We are talking about stuff like East German handball players after all, not some incredibly highly searched topic that really needs a page on Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Certainly some incorrect assumptions are being made, by you. You are talking about the articles as they have been presented by SvG and his sock MFriedman. They might be in such condition. They have not been checked by legitimate editors. The ones which were checked should not have been tampered with. The first two, I mentioned at the top of this section, have definitely been improved upon since SvG left. They were on my watch list. They have no business being deleted, but all of you have been preventing them from getting restored since my initial request a week ago. And the ones that were checked by MFriedman should be made into drafts so they can be checked. If I check them, they will get improved. I assume the same will be done by other members of Project Athletics. Of course, you've heard it; when you assume you make an ass out of you and me. There are a lot of asses right now. Trackinfo (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got sidetracked by restoring thousands of redirects. Upon looking at the two articles in question, the bulk of the content has indeed been added by other editors, so I had no issue with restoring them to the main space as they are. —Xezbeth (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction

Thank you Xezbeth for finally, rightfully restoring those two articles.

What this also provides is evidence. Over this entire week, not one of you administrators have considered my argument. Any one of you could have looked at the article to see the legitimacy of my claims, that the articles had been previously checked and improved by other editors. Any one of you, who commented above or who just passed by, could have verified that fact and restored this content. But none of you did. For a week, not one of you did. This screams "good old boys." You need to look at your behavior as a group, as individuals. Why didn't you respect the word of a non-administrator enough to even look? This goes to the credibility of you as a group. No wonder so many editors act and feel like you don't give them any respect. You certainly didn't give me any respect and I have been right on every count. Cabal does exist. My claim is justified.

I suggest you create some new procedures to ensure you don't behave this way toward non-administrators in the future. Now we have an open question. Will you do anything? Or will you attempt to cover this up? Or will you just ignore it again, because a "good old boy" can't be wrong.

At the forefront of this is the accused administrative editor, JzG. How vehemently has he argued. I do not recall seeing Trackinfo's name against a single edit after the move back from Draft to mainspace by socks. These articles clearly show how superficially and thoughtlessly he deleted content. I believe you would phrase that "misused tools." Many of these articles had sources that did not even contain the information they were purported to contain, there is a reason they were rejected from mainspace. Maybe for other articles. Clearly not these. He argued, with the support of others for a week, and didn't even look at the damage he caused. And the sabotage? The sabotage had nothing to do with SvG. That was just an act of vengeance against the subject of a stub article created by SvG. Additional salt against any editor who might try to revive that subject. And the clearly false accusations of my taking to Facebook. None of this is behavior becoming of an administrator. If administrators were behaving in an admirable fashion, they would have taken disciplinary action. Instead, you just supported his claims.

I bring into question the quality of this entire mass deletion, nuclear option. I call it thoughtless and have suggested for over a year that "thought" is what is needed. We had the articles temporarily identified in draft space. For the articles related to my area of expertise, our Project Athletics checked the 2,000 plus articles first. Unfortunately, MFriedman was one of the editors. The logical reaction would be to undo the bad work of the sock, take it back to draft space. Instead it got wholesale "nuked." You have wholesale prevented them from getting rescued. With a little bit of credibility wind in my sail, I will repeat my claim more specifically; I have not seen any fraudulent content or misrepresentation by SvG. Sloppy, yes. Wrong, no. His massive labor provided the necessary starting point for thousands of subjects. I have not seen an article he created that cannot be salvaged. Why are you so forcefully going out of your way to deny us the chance? Back to the original claim. It only looks like irrational vindictiveness against any article SvG created. I want that content back where responsible editors can see it, rescue it, source it and move it to mainspace where it belongs. What does it hurt to put it back to draft?

I can't speak for other projects, perhaps with less forceful voices. Does that make 20,000 articles disappearing justifiable? I certainly don't think so. I think the first thing that needs to be deleted is the concept of "delete" from your list of options. We delete incorrect information; fraud, deceit. We add sources and improve legitimate content. Let editors do what we do. What is the damage caused by leaving all of this in draft space? All I have seen is artificial impatience. Like the first four articles, do you fear we prove this stuff is legit? Trackinfo (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "I have not seen any fraudulent content or misrepresentation by SvG. Sloppy, yes. Wrong, no. " Plenty of evidence of such content was given at the original discussion that led to the draftifying of all these articles in the first place. If you haven't seen it, I suggest you look again. This included very serious BLP violations, but also using one source for a BLP where that source (not the actual link, but the complete website it pointed at) didn't include the person involved. We now know that he also uploaded photographs as "own work" which weren't his own work, which I would call "fraudulent work" and "misrepresentation". Of course, using a sock to approve your own work could also be seen as "misrepresentation" and "fraudulent work"... Instead of instantly deleting is work, people were given many months to check the work. While some people did this conscientiously, the majority of these checks were done by himself as a sock, by a sock of banned user Slowking4 who also didn't care about the problems, and by a series of other editors who simply moved all problems back into the mainspace. That your complaints here were not acted upon to your liking has a lot to do with your head-in-the-sand attitude in your opening statement, like "Whatever minor offense SvG committed, I have seen no evidence of it", which indicates that you totally ignored looking at the origin of this whole sorry episode.
• I just took a look at one of his creations during his brief return, and these should be moved to draft space as well.
  Fram (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

My sample size is small relative to the number of articles, maybe a couple hundred athletics articles. Every one I looked at could be and was cleaned. Maybe he was better at athletics. Speaking of small sample size, what percentage of active editors were involved in your great decision to nuke all the content? We have a problem with socks. Maybe we need to validate the users who are checking the content in draft space. I've only been editing wikipedia for just short of 11 years. You think I'd qualify? Trackinfo (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any non-rhetorical questions, feel free to pose them. Any article (as long as the subject exists and is notable) can be cleaned, that doesn't mean that this is the best solution. The consensus then was that in many, many cases, the articles contained so little information and so relatively many errors (for stubs) that starting over was easier and safer than cleaning them up.

Fram (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• • Ugh. So apparently flooding the mainspace with tens of thousands of inaccurate articles on living people, lying about the source of uploaded photographs, and using a sock account to stuff the crap articles back in mainspace without being checked or corrected are all just "minor offenses". I'd ask what Trackinfo would consider to be a major offense, but in this case we already know: cleaning up the mess. Hence all the ranting and shrieking about secret cabals and "deliberate sabotage". The reason Trackinfo is being opposed on this is not because there's a sinister "untouchable leadership"- a cabal of evil scary kitten-eating deletionists- but because his views are not grounded in reality. Reyk _YO! 11:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point entirely. You are making me re-detail this and are lengthening my replies as a consequence. I started this incident around four articles deleted by JzG, isolated by SFB on User talk:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines#Sockpuppets. JzG had the ability to look at what he was deleting at the time, in person, and as an administrator he continued to have the ability to actually look at the deleted articles in question. Other admins who commented; NeilN, DGG, Tiderolls had the same ability. I don't know how many other admins passed by. You all assumed Jzg was right and I was venting about something insignificant; SvG garbage. Discussion continued for a full week about two articles Aisha Praught-Leer and Alex Rose (athlete). While I could not see the deleted articles, I was certain that these articles were significantly improved upon since SvG. Now restored, the history of those articles proves ME right, and that I was part of that history. Beyond My Ken said Admins are answerable for their actions, but they are not required to put up with abuse such as you've just laid on him. So who was abusing who? I was being abused by the Administrator and all of you articulately backed him and had through each of the earlier escalations of this case. THAT IS THE CABAL. You take the word from an Admin who is not telling the truth. You pile on with evidence that is not the truth. I could wait for apologies but that is not the real point. I just want to change your pattern of behavior for the future. Stop assuming non-administrators are crackpots. Stop assuming administrators are always right. Stop protecting the "good old boys" when they are wrong. You have the ability to fix problems. Open your eyes and do some fixing.

I rescued two of the simpler articles from Wayback. I didn't change a word of SvG's original content, I simply supplemented. That demonstrated the condition I have found the SvG content I have dealt with. On that page, SFB volunteered to check and thus rescue any SvG created content related to athletics, which I have continually volunteered to do as well. This is a job the two of us thought had already been done a year ago, [72] a status we wish to return to.

So our stated goal got confused by disingenuous contributions by socks. We simply want that content back. I produced lists created at the time of the articles I wanted back. [73] for example. And notice, the draft of articles I recreated Alejandra Ortega and Cisiane Lopes are not linked to the existing articles by the same name. This deliberate unlinking prevents us from producing a coherent list of exactly what needs to be made available for our project. [74] shows a lot that have been rescued. How many have been rescued, how many have not. I can't tell you because the linkage is missing. A little over 200 out of over 2,000 for certain [75] [76] [77] some by me, subsequently improved upon by others. Exactly what I keep saying has happened and should happen. I use that process as evidence of what could become of the other 20,000, given the kind of input we get at Project Athletics. I can't guarantee other projects have that kind of support. It does take support to bring the initial contribution of SvG into clearer focus. He provided the starting point. But certainly all this stuff related to athletics is not junk. The assumptions are proven wrong.

And since this incident was focused on the four articles, lets go back to Cisiane Lopes. I identified seven locations where her name was deliberately unlinked by JzG. [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] In most cases, out of lists of results with many red links, her's was the ONLY name that did not have a link. All of that removal was the deliberate, meticulous work of JzG. What possible use could all that have, except to sabotage? How could someone go through that much work and not notice the significance of this subject? The only answer is vindictiveness. Trackinfo (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The tool most admins use to delete articles is Twinkle. When you delete an article, you get the option to also remove backlinks. I did that on the first few articles but others said that the athletics fans would be happier leaving redlinks, so I switched to leaving backlinks intact. So the "seven locations" where I "deliberately unlinked" the article are actually a single standard action. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Having just read through this whole thread, it occurs to me that
  IDHT rants. If this continues, I suspect a boomerang might be in order. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• But I hope you didn't miss that the walls of text are Reyk's fault, not Trackinfo's. GoldenRing (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I certainly missed the part where Reyk was holding Trackinfo at gunpoint and forcing him to type. Could you point that out? --Calton | Talk 10:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm puzzled by that claim too, since only one of Trackinfo's rambling walls of text is in response to my comment. Reyk _YO! 11:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ...wait, I think I missed some sarcasm there. Reyk _YO! 11:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Calton and Reyk: Sorry, yes, communication fail on my part there. You are making me re-detail this and are lengthening my replies as a consequence. GoldenRing (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kill the messenger. Threaten

Further research revealed this was part of a mass deletion by JzG. At User talk:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Guidelines#Sockpuppets SFB helped isolate these four named articles. Two were tiny stubs I was able to rescue from Wayback and improve; Alejandra Ortega and Cisiane Lopes. Those were articles started by SvG. Look at them now. Were they worthy of being deleted?

A more important athlete Aisha Praught-Leer had just been updated to include her marriage and name change days earlier. This is what it looked like after SvG started it, but this is what it looked like when it was deleted. Was SvG's start of the article meritorious of trashing all the subsequent content? Again. Show of hands, does anybody think I am not justified in asking for it to be restored? (break for votes) Trackinfo (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are also a symptom of a much broader deletion effort, the size and scope of which I cannot identify. Failing to get a positive response from the administrator, two days later, I brought the request to

Now you all can see what was done and the resistance. When I articulate that, when I suggest you correct for your pattern of behavior and fix the problem, suddenly I am the problem? I don't get it. Is it that you don't want to hear the truth?

And this happens on the same day an article I helped rescue from the dead at AfD shows up on the WP homepage. Trackinfo (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo - any "high-value" pages (medal winners, etc) can easily be restored, if needed. If you know of any of these that have been deleted, then just ask (I think

WP:REFUND is the place) and make the necessary changes to make it BLP sound. Alternatively, I'm happy to recreate any articles for Olympians (and some other sports) that have been nuked. Drop me a note if you want them re-stubbed. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Lugnuts, thank you. I will certainly request restoration of any article I detect is missing, as I did above. I hope your offer will shortcut needing to spend a week through the obviously failed, conventional process. And you have made many valuable additions to the content on SvG articles yourself, made easier because it already existed for you to hang your contributions onto. Since my words are not getting through to the crowd, perhaps you could help explain it to them. I expect you have had your content wiped out too. The problem will come in identifying the damage done by mass deletion. We have to click on, for example, a results page and then on each red link to determine if it was deleted or just has been omitted from our efforts. It will be one article at a time, slowly restoring damage nuked by the thousands in just a few thoughtless clicks. I may not live long enough. Trackinfo (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor, Diannaa, has unilaterally decided to remove all the edits that I have recently performed on The Wallace Collection wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Collection), citing copyright violations for all of them. The editor has failed to consider that my content does not wholly match, in very many places, the content that is mentioned on a website they have also cited. In fact, they have applied a cursory look and choose to discriminate based on a glance.

There are two issues:- 1) Copyright Violations 2) General article layout improvements

Moreover, I did not take content from that website, but as I mentioned in my e-mail to them that it is based on Gallery Labels and museum publications. Alas, in some places there is clear overlap where I have not edited the content yet.

Many of the edits were nothing to do with the content that they are disputing but to improve the articles layout following examples set in featured articles, and neither have I introduced further pictures other than a single image, the remaining are those already within the article.

They, Diannaa, have removed all my edits citing copyright violations, which is incorrect as it doesn't apply to all my edits and separately, they have stated they 'won't be restoring the removed images, as the English Wikipedia is not intended as an image repository.', again they didn't bother to even look at my edits closely when most of them where improvements.

Looking at the layout they have decided to revert too, verses the improvements, this is a clear backward step that hardly is in keeping with one of wikipedia's aims for the community, at large, to provide continual improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.chohan (talk • contribs)

The deleted edits included infringing content. The tools available to us as admins don't allow us to pick things apart like you seem to think we should, all we can do is remove all revisions that contain infringing content. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M.chohan, our normal practice when an editor has added copyvio material in a series of edits is to presumptively revert to the last revision before that series of edits began (an editor who adds one copyvio often adds others too, which may not immediately be so easy to identify). That's not quite what happened in this particular case: Diannaa did not remove the content you added with this edit, which to me has every appearance of having been copied from somewhere (or do you say stuff like "This exuberant, animated style explores asymmetrical natural shapes with fountain imagery, foliage and flowers, swirling scrolls and sea animals" while you're eating your corn-flakes?). So forgive me if I ask: did you write that stuff yourself? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: We do have some options. You can edit out the offending content during a restore and add attribution for the remaining content, with deleted history, in the edit comment.--v/r - TP 01:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that something the original poster should do? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. There's no reason to have a "rule" about who should do it.--v/r - TP 02:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. On the other hand, can a copyright violator be trusted to get it right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm feeling like we're in agreement?--v/r - TP 03:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. The revisions that contain the infringing text still have to be deleted. That's the only admin action that's taken place here. If the OP then wants to replay the non-copyvio edits, nobody's stopping that, but the admin tools don't allow us to selectively delete sections, say. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am committed to revising, substantially, the text that is infringing, I do not seek to violate wikipedia rules. Can I suggest that if you can revert the edits back and permit me ten days to make the necessary amendments, I will remove the text that may be infringing as well as re-write the remaining text to as original research. Should thereafter editors feel that substantive revision has occurred then the article can be accepted as revised, if not, then the editors can make their decision without dispute. Thanks ←M.chohan

Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot host such content for legal reasons. That is the reason it was not only removed, but deleted from the history. If you asked for an hour or two with the content so that you could completely rewrite it, then maybe we'd consider it, but 10 days is out of the question. Swarm ♠ 02:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What is left out in this discussion is how amazing, knowledgeable and professional the User:Diannaa is about copyright issues. Is she ever wrong? Not very often. Is she awesome? Yes. I'd be willing to say that she is one of the top ten most level-headed, professional and and rational Wikipedians.104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is that got to do with this discussion? So far the comments made on this discussion by knowledgeable professionals has been nothing short of exemplary moreover its been informative and I appreciate the diligence attached, but I am sure the good wikipedians on here aren't so tied up with providing each other with platitudes and superlatives!

Please read

WP:boomerang too. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health

Despite good faith efforts (and what appears to be hours of work), everything has been reverted by editor DrFleischman in one fell swoop. He has been engaging in disruptive editing on this page for years, this most recent example being the most egregious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.111.178 (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something very odd is going on on this page. I stopped editing Wikipedia 7 years ago precisely because hours of work could vanish within seconds. I logged in to revert what was clearly a disruptive edit, and within seconds, the reversion was reverted. Ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biovirus04 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What alerted you to log in again, after 7 years? In any case, this is a content dispute, or perhaps more accurately a "reliable sources" dispute. You might not like Mother Jones but calling them "fake news" is not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biovirus, I note that 75.172.111.178 geolocates to Seattle, the other IP active on this article (User:76.104.199.83) geolocates to Seattle, and your 34 edits in the last 10 years were exclusively to Seattle-related articles. The three of you should grab a coffee! Chetsford (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And similarly, early edits alleging media bias. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I keep thinking of the first line of "I Am the Walrus"? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boris: WP:ANI is not the place to ask about thoughts that just popped into your mind nor for a medical opinion about those thoughts. See the standard disclaimer. If you are having intrusive thoughts about songs by the Beatles - or for that matter any other mid 1960's British Invasion bands - that is a matter for you and your health professionals. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are only 3 million people in Seattle. We all drink coffee and watch Frasier together on Thursdays. I wonder what brings Chetsford around, since he's never edited the ACSH article before. Maybe we should ask DrFleischman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biovirus04 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. This will all be over soon. Chetsford (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Socking is against the rules, and the Biovirus is being caught in that webfoot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be mostly a content. I suggest you take a read of

WP:Primary sources and then try and resolve this on the talk page, as the people who reverted suggested you do. If you can't, try some method of WP:Dispute resolution none of which involve ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

But do make sure to confer with each other before you take any further steps. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• So, the IP and Biovirus04 are clearly one and the same, but Biovirus04 has some past edits (albeit from years ago) that seem uncontentious. Also he may have a point. So I have directed him to FTN, where he will find people experienced with anti-vax and the like. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the alt text for the visually impaired readers keeping in mind that how they would make an image of it in their minds. But user User:livelikemusic modified entire text to his likelyhood. Using slang words of no classic English use like 'photoshopped', etc. But when I questioned him, he just deleted the section on his talk page, which too is not good for future of Wikipedia. I need explanation from him. I wasn't attacking him but just asking my queries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshrathod50 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshopped is considered to be a word in common English usage by the folks at Oxford.104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hey Harshrathod50: I sincerely appreciate your efforts to improve Wikipedia's accessibility; Alt text is often forgotten by a lot of editors, myself included! However, I think your attitude does need some adjustment: Comments like I hat eyou for reformatting ^(Sic) are incivil, and will not lead to people wanting to work with you. In the case of this specific disagreement, I think "photoshop" is term understood to mean "digitally altered in some way" (see the dictionary definition), but I also agree a description of the alterations is important for an accessible caption. In short, Work with people, not against them. We're all here to build an Encyclopaedia, after all.

Dispute resolution noticeboard, which is more suited to this sort of dispute? -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 17:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

(1) Users are allowed to delete stuff from their talk pages. (2) "Likelyhood"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Is I hat eyou anything like I ♥ Huckabees? EEng 22:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or huckleberries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As a general aside @
  Iridescent 19:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• As another general aside, a great idea for a Wikiproject would be Wikiproject Alt Text, which would just be people going around adding alt text where it's missing (which is almost everywhere). Now there's an unfilled need! EEng 22:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking for something productive to do around WP recently whilst I drum up the motivation to stretch my content muscles: Something like this would be perfect to scratch that itch! 22:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfie (talk • contribs)

Bringing it here wasn't the right choice made by USER:livelikemusic. All he did was just get other editors into this trivial matter.

@Alfie: I obediently accept everything you said. Henceforth, i will keep my personal feelings aside before writing anything here. @EEng#s and Baseball Bugs: Please don't turn this into a hoax. Is not this behaviour incivil? Your idea for Wikiproject Alt Text is awesome. I'm gonna join it too. @

✓ Done. The idea that alt-text is supposed to describe the image is a common misconception. ‑ 

Iridescent 08:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

What did you do? This page is still as it is? Harsh Rathod 09:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshrathod50 (talk • contribs)

✓ Done he only fixed the alt-text in the example, not the displayed markup of the example. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But when I questioned him, he just deleted the section on his talk page, which too is not good for future of Wikipedia. I need explanation from him. I wasn't attacking him but just asking my queries. Unfortunately, this is not true. I did respond, twice, on my talk page — as evident here and here — and the conversation was removed because they wanted it removed, as per their edit summary, so while I don't normally delete discussions like that, I did so. And, unfortunately, this user is still making this a personal environment at other pages, including here and here, despite being told not to make things personal multiple times. livelikemusic talk! 19:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:Darrencdm1988. When I checked the account they say is inaccessible User: Darren1988cdm, that account had edited as recently as February 1, 2018. Might not be important, but just in case ... — Maile (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) This warrants the attention of a Checkuser, who can check if they're accessing from the same IP. I've opened a

WP:SPI, we'll see how that turns out. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 22:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

A CU has confirmed - Looks like Darrencdm198 is Darren1988cdm! -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 22:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't the user just redirect their old talk page to their new one and just start using the new one from there? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edits by

The user just added this person to a category - and one I'd say makes a controversial implication, yes. But I don't think this is serious enough to qualify the edits for

RD2. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, requests for revision deletion (especially for edits you believe to be serious BLP violations) shouldn't be requested in public like this - you should instead contact an admin or follow the instructions

here ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC) [reply

]

(Non-administrator comment) That user added links to articles about mental disorders/negative things to articles about people, and then removed them. [85][86]This is a BLB issue[87][88][89][90]

No source and [91] to name some.  

I'll err on the side of caution and redact (at least for now), but I want to keep this discussion open so that other administrators can review and comment. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hard to tell if this is willful vandalism, but it appears more likely than not. We should probably wait and see if it continues because it looks like a potentially good faith user. Swarm ♠ 20:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Systematic BLP violations by a user whose name is strongly suggestive of a grudge against a named admin. I have blocked at this point, mainly due to the violations, which I think defy a good-faith explanation. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:ItsTime1995 has shown a repeated refusal to add sources to multiple articles, including McLaren MCL33, Red Bull Racing RB14, Williams FW41 and Mercedes AMG F1 W09 EQ Power+: [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101].

This is despite multiple messages informing him of the need for

I left this user an ANI notice for you ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No edits have been made by the user since this ANI discussion has started - I'm going to wait and see what the editor does before I decide what we should do. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah — that's fine by me. I've done everything within my power to impress upon him the importance of RS and VER and he has ignored me at every turn. There's nothing more that I can do. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping that this ANI is enough to turn his head and get him to respond. Either way, we'll see. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could be way-off, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is a sock of User:Jvm21. Jvm21 was blocked in September 2017. ItsTime1995 became more active shortly afterwards. Both accounts edit motorsport and film articles (check the earlier contributions from IT1995). IT1995 is not adding sources and refuses to discuss this. This was the initital issue with Jvm21, which among with other factors, lead to them being blocked. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah, @Lugnuts — whoever he is, it looks like he has backed off completely. I'll keep an eye out just in case but it's a little tricky to juggle ten articles at once. I was mostly concerned that this would be another GeoJoe1000 sock; I've had a lot of problems with abuse from him in the past to the point where I had to have additional restrictions as to who can edit placed on my talk page. Those restrictions have nearly expired, so I'm anticipating more trouble from him soon. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support this accusation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your continuous accusations, I am only curious about how "the spirit of a free encyclopedia" is "created through consensus". --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, how would it not be? Britmax (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the "free" here refers to free content, a technical term which is unlikely to be related to "a spirit".--INDICATOR2018 (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

for "spirit" read "aims" or "philosophy behind", nothing to do with things that go bump in the night. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would assist the admins greatly if you could provide some unambiguous examples of pushing PRC propaganda onto articles in a manner that is disruptive. Otherwise this just looks like a content dispute. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

A few examples... IPs that follow are owned by the above user (already admitted by him/her). Here, this user removes the word "prominent" from a description of a jailed Chinese columnist, then edit wars over it for a few days. Here is an example of several edits where the user seeks to downplay Tibetan autonomy. Here, there is a long-term edit war where the same user keeps moving the "Censorship" section lower down the WeChat page. WeChat is a censored chat app in China, similar to WhatsApp – but WhatsApp is blocked because it's not censored. After this user got an account, he/she kept edit warring over the same thing. One of many edits where this user seeks to downplay any autonomy of Hong Kong, Macao, Tibet, or Taiwan – instead going around underlining PRC sovereignty. Here he/she has been edit warring for ages at "Battle of Toungoo", changing the result from "Japanese victory" to "Japanese tactical victory/Successful Chinese retreat". Downplaying ROC sovreignty. Stamping out any scent of HK autonomy. Going about advocating that the viewpoint of the Chinese government ought to be expanded, like here. Pushing pinyin, the Chinese government-approved system of romanisation, even on Hong Kong articles. Pinyin is not used in Hong Kong. Adding POV tag to coverage of sexual harassment in China with no explanation, and edit warring over it.

Etc etc... the usual low-level political agenda editing and a clear case of

WP:CENSOR. Citobun (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Resorting to ad hominem simply doesn't justify your politically-motivated accusations. (the usual low-level political agenda editing, lacks understanding of key Wikipedia policies)
2. In terms of the word "prominent", prior to the editing war(this version), there is no source cited to verify the rather assertive word "Prominent ". So I boldly removed it based on what
   MOS:PUFF states. Currently, due to this edit
   made by "Rolf h nelson", this word has been verified. Therefore, I wouldn't argue over it.
3. For your second accusation, it simply baffles me. Please elaborate to me how I ″downplay(ed) Tibetan autonomy″. I made this edit to both make this article in correspondence with Gyaincain Norbu which states Chökyi Gyalpo, also referred to by secular name Gyaincain Norbu, is the 11th Panchen Lama selected by the government of People's Republic of China and state necessary facts. Is that wrong?
4. As for Wechat, please check out my explanation at Talk:WeChat#Edit_explanation before making your accusation.
5. For the ″downplay any autonomy″, I was making these edits to do necessary corrections that Tibet, Macao, Hong Kong are all provincial-level administrations of China.(see Administrative divisions of China) which clearly don't have the same status as China, a sovereign state.
6. Concerning Battle of Toungoo, I would like you to reassess my edits where I restored the deleted content. Plus, the result of this battle also cannot be verified. So both versions are arguably acceptable.
7. For the Downplaying ROC sovreignty [sic], please tell me if I am wrong to say that ROC is a partially recognised state as what List of states with limited recognition states. How could a simple edit of stating facts become dowplaying sovereignty. I cannot understand.
8. In terms of what happens in Category:Hong Kong, please see a third opinion made by Zanhe (talk · contribs):

   "city state" generally refers to sovereign states, see http://www.dictionary.com/browse/city-state and other dictionaries.

   Based on your logic, isn't Zanhe also a political agenda editor?
9. Regarding the
   Talk:Baren Township riot, my rationales have been quite clear. Also, please check out what "Sassmouth" conveys

   I agree with with INDICATOR2018 At first glance i think paragraph 3 and 4 of of the uygher pov section should be deleted i would like to hear other editors opinions on the matter??? Thanks

   in this edit
   .
10. For my Pinyin edit, I totally know Pinyin is not used in Hong Kong. Yet we should know that this is English Wikipedia, not HKpedia. At present, Pinyin Guangdong is more prevalent Canton in English.

Finally, I strongly suggest that you verify these edits both personally and thoroughly before making extremely MISLEADING accusations. --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since December, I have sent seven messages to this editor about creating unreferenced articles and failing to communicate. All have been ignored, although the editor continues to edit.

Other editors have also raised concerns, and HK has ignored all messages from editors in the eight months they have been editing. Articles which have been tagged with concerns include:

I looked at some of his edits, going back to December. Pretty innocuous stuff. But yeah, he probably deserves a block for completely ignoring all communication. Perhaps he does not understand how talk pages work?104.163.148.25 (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified him of the AN/I discussion. However, it doesn't look like they know how to use a talk page - or it could be a case of

WP:ICANTHEARYOU. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I have contacted this editor 4 times over the last month and a bit, with no response although they have continued editing: see

It should be added that many of the edits are weirdly incompetent. I had this same thought - it seemed familiar somehow - but can’t quite recall the bell that it rings. JohnInDC (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like making edits just for the sake of making them. The net effect seems close to zero. Weird. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the net effect isn’t zero. A significant percent of his edits are just wrong, and introduce errors that have to be cleaned up. I’ve noted several on his talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't this kind of behavior come up in one of the arbcom-related venues such as

WP:GAME). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

If they're aiming for that status, it's easy enough for any admin to remove it under discretionary sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of several other

tendentious users, but appears to be unrelated. Apparently this just happened, which if it's not deliberate trolling, probably should just be CIR blocked. Alex Shih (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Well Alex, you're an admin now. Let's see your mop-fu. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: The mop manual says no edit after final warning means wait and see. Alex Shih (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought this was after a final warning. My bad. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Range contribs for 2600:1700:C9F0:76D0:*

Widespread vandalism on The Amazing World of Gumball pages over the past few weeks. Example edits: [106] [107] [108][109] [110] [111] [112]. I believe the range is 2600:1700:C9F0:76D0::/64 EvergreenFir (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edits might not be blatant vandalism (just the removal of people and items from episode credits) - but I don't know much about this article, so I could be wrong. Either way, the edits are concerning - they're not explained in edit summaries, large in quantity, and with intentions being questionable. Hence, I've blocked the IP range for disruptive editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: thank you for blocking. I should have clarified that I did check the credits for some of the episodes being edited. The people being removed were indeed credited for those episodes, so the user was removing correct information. To me that constitutes at least disruptive editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EvergreenFir - Cool, sounds good to me! Thanks man - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After I wrote an essay a month ago recapping what had been said to Esagurton and attempting to give some clear examples, they satisfyingly asked me about talk pages. I gave some related advice and they just recently did exactly what I suggested not to do. (But maybe they never even saw my response. I may never know.) Changes for the worse on a GA or FA (especially if it's a prominent species) will be noticed, but I'm troubled by changes to articles that likely have hardly any watchers and may go unnoticed (this one at Knight anole almost 4 months ago instead of this way better image, for example). Esagurton has learned a couple of things, but without the ability to collaborate and understand how the project works I don't see how they'll be a productive editor and have an overall positive impact. Rhinopias (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinopias, what action are you asking administrators to take? This editor is using edit summaries and in some cases, discussing their changes on talk pages. It is obvious that they have a preference for full body images, and I understand that you disagree. But there is inherent subjectivity in selecting images. You have not presented evidence that this editor is being so disruptive that a block or a topic ban is warranted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this preference for full-body images of animals several times now, and I've seen several people argue against using it as an absolute rule. Since I haven't seen it codified in any guideline/MOS page, this would work like jsut about any other content dispute -- coming to a consensus regarding which best illustrates the subject. Or, to quote MOS:IMAGES: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." While full-body shots might be the best thing to satisfy that guidance in many cases, if there's a higher-quality, more engaging way to illustrate the subject, I think that would also work (with the full-body shot going further down the page). Regardless, since this isn't the place for content disputes but for behavioral issues, it seems like the best advice would be for Esagurton to read and appreciate

WP:BRD. When it becomes clear that changing the image on a page will be contentious, it would be good practice to simply propose images on the talk page instead of continually adding them to the article. Rhinopias, you would probably need to make a stronger case that this is disruptive to bring about admin action, as Cullen said. If there's no clear guidance (or even something that says there's no clear guidance :) ), it may be worth an RfC at, say, WikiProject Animals. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm concerned that the contributions of

Blocked the IP a month, the person currently assigned the IP indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're back at User:73.94.200.16. Might have to investigate some rangeblocking. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This charming talk page comment shows the editor's sweet personality: "The bugs hiding under the log get mad when you remind them of the light of day." They are fond of comparing people to animals. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the second IP and will leave rangeblocking to another administrator who is more technically proficient. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The range is way too wide. NorthBySouthBaranof, if they hop again then we'll look at article protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I semiprotected

German Revolution of 1918–19 and am watching their other favorites. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not too sure whether this is related to User:EchoUSA or not, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EchoUSA/Archive. SA 13 Bro (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a neo-Nazi a few months ago who was interested in the elaborate logos of the various contemporary fascist factions. This one wants to plaster red Stars of David on all mentions of Jewish Communists. Whether it is one person or two, the disruption is clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NannetteKnowsMen is a new editor who had edited only two content pages, a draft which appears to be an autobiography, and a draft which is of a new therapeutic technique by same person. I declined the technique page at Draft:The Agony Element™.

Said user responded to me with some inappropriately hostile posts on my Talk, and allegations of CoI. I've responded civilly, asked them to specify the CoI, asked them to post links to the "help desk" and other page when I've apparently "been reported" (I do not see such in user's Contributions). Honestly, the overall tone of the writing is rather disturbing which combined with the refusal to give details makes this a rather uncomfortable situation.

Please see this entry wherein Nannette issues a legal threat to me: User_talk:MatthewVanitas#You_are_a_COI_to_Wikipedia:

Wiki's Legal Department will be asked to review YOU in this matter. Doubtless, I am far from the first person to complain about your tactics, but I will be the last.

I will post said user a link to this ANI for their notification. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I seem brusque in the AFC, it's because I already wrote said editor a very clear explanation at the AFC Help Desk, including explaining why it was not ready to be submitted, only to have them immediately submit it with no changes. So I was brief because I'd already gave them a full explanation five minutes prior. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note on my Talk, hostile posts from same editor both above and below the linked section. MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user also came into the help IRC channel before all of this and refused to declare her COI as she is writing articles on herself and her "groundbreaking discovery". No legal threats were made there, but I did want to point out the antagonistic behavior from this user. Also see ticket:2018022510002155. Nihlus 10:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to nom her user page for deletion, but somebody beat me to it. -Roxy, knows women. barcus 10:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At long last, I am somebody! --bonadea, knows people. Well, some people.
On a less frivolous note, I would have liked to tag the drafts as blatant spam because they are clearly only there to promote herself and her own personal pet theory, but I'm not sure the language is promotional enough. --bonadea contributions talk 10:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nihlus, I take it one can't see the OTRS ticket without a login? Am I allowed to ask if I'm actually being threatened with legal action via WikiMedia by an author in Australia? I'm not necessarily alarmed since I really, really doubt I've done anything actionable, but it does seem inappropriate. MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewVanitas:--Nothing to be even slightly bothered about:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G11'd both drafts and warned the user to stop using Wikipedia to promote themselves. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone uninvolved step in to explain to

• And ... no, he's definitely not [113]. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a cow a bovine is now a crime? look up the description of

pathological liar and look at the work done by the person in question. The comment was added to make a justifiable point. people who do NOT know about certain people should NOT be making nominations on their behalf. This is NOT the first time Wikipedia decided to ignore the death of a known international actors by stating bullshit reasoning for it...and it definitely won't be the last. There was no option given by TRM for a blurb when it was obvious to most that that article should have received a blurb nomination. Manish tried to bring that up and Stephen abused his admin rights and blocked him.Why are only "american-known" celebrities treated better than the rest of the world, Is this wikipedia, Ameripedia or Christianpedia, please explain...in detail.--Stemoc 11:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

If you look back, it is quite a regular thing for people to be nominated at RD and then get a blurb when there is a significant support for it. Indeed, if you look at Billy Graham's nomination, it was originally posted as an RD [114] (by The Rambling Man, no less) before being converted to a blurb when sufficiently supported. So the discussion at Sridevi is nothing unusual - a number have people have already suggested a blurb so consensus will just form in the usual manner. Manish was just being disruptive trying to open a second nomination, removing other people's comments, canvassing and restoring those same BLP violations despite being warned not to multiple times. And no, you don't get to describe Graham in that way, so please don't do it again, you can compare the two nominations without resorting to that. Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but ppl were supporting RD cause no one knew that you can "support blurb", people who voted there are not the same people who vote regularly on ITN/C so if you are going to make a nomination, makes sure you make one which is the better option which in this case was a blurb, i'm pretty sure if the 8 or so people who supported RD were aware that they could support a blurb, they would have done so....--Stemoc 12:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that if people think it doesn't deserve a blurb, they vote "Oppose" and so it ends up not even getting an RD. That's why it usually works the other way round. Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Stemoc seems to be rather POINTy when it comes to religion. I can funnily recall the last time I came across this editor, which was during a 2014 discussion concerning the nomination of the new patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church, which he kept describing as a "cult" despite reservations from other editors. A strong reminder that BLP applies to recently deceased individuals and that it involves talk pages as well should be issued. Fitzcarmalan (talk)
  • I'm not the one that keeps pushing religious propaganda and giving it priority to it so if i have to be POINTy to fight that injustice, so be it. My comments there stands true 3 years on, we are prioritizing religious nonsense over real news....That pastor died 4 days ago, its very much "stale news" now, lets have something more far reaching and interesting on the main page instead of the same old same old ..don't you think?--Stemoc 12:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, we get it. You're an anti-religion bigot. You're also not going to get your way, so stop spouting nonsense. Nobody is pushing religious propaganda; you're just throwing a temper tantrum because you can't get your precious way.
      Lepricavark (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Stemoc, I very much disapprove of your tone and your direct personal attack here. Before you ever ping me again, you should know that anyone can nominate anything including RD and/or blurbs, and RD noms are regularly converted to blurb nominations. Personally attacking me and then hounding me here is completely unacceptable. I'll be keen to see you never make any such mistakes again, and if that means you are prevented from editing Wikipedia again, that would be a reasonable outcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that Stemoc is clear, since I saw this in one of their recent edit summaries: while BLP is meant to protect living persons, it also extends to those recently deceased like Graham; the moment someone dies, we do not start throwing accusations and other factors into their articles or on talk pages, we still treat that with some decorum. How long after a person dies that BLP still applies varies, but it generally from around 6 months to a year or more if the person was highly controversial. --Masem (t) 13:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to get threatened by a serial sock puppeteer and an infamous former (multiple times because our rfa process is a huge failure) admin who the arbcom does not have the balls to ban...and that is what's wrong with wikipedia today, whats that old saying? ahh yes, the inmates are running the asylum....please continue, its not like this project will have a long shelf life..--Stemoc 14:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So currently we have edit wars going with Serbia men's national basketball team participation in

• EuroBasket
• FIBA Basketball World Cup (talk page discussion)

Some Serbian editors, especially

http://www.fiba.basketball/eurobasket/2017/all-time-medalists"

And here are FIBA sources by team

• Yugoslavia 1965–2002
• Serbia and Montenegro 2003–2006
• Serbia 2007–present

We clearly need a admin point of view, because those editors won't stop the disruptive edits with ridiculous explanations. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've fully protected the articles for 4 days, but this is a content dispute. Administrators do not have higher authority in determining what content should be used on an article.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]