Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive315

@Tempus: Please could you provide some diffs showing personal attacks or uncivil behaviour on English-language Wikipedia in October or November 2019. Have there been any? Toddy1 (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• I provided links at the very beginning of the discussion. About Wlbw68:

  For the sake of this ideology, historical facts are distorted, false information is disseminated in the media, redo texts of textbooks and encyclopedias, etc. A good example of this is the Russian Wikipedia, in which Tempus commands. Wlbw68 (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC) — link

  Wikipedia editor Tempus is a supporter of strict censorship in favor of the Russian government. That is why he removes any critical expert authoritative opinion against the government of the Russian Federation. In Russian Wikipedia, he is engaged in constant squabbles, demanding to ban all his opponents forever. He achieved this in relation to me and Nicoljaus. Now he has come to the English Wikipedia, here he wants to introduce censorship, he wants to destroy any free thought and ban all those who disagree with him. As an example of disgusting and destructive activities of the editor of Wikipedia Tempus. Wlbw68 (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC) — link

  Цель Tempus-а это всех перебанить с ним несогласных (как он это делает в руВики, там он без конца жалуется A.Vajrapani , которая всегда выполнит любой запрос Tempus-а и всех перебанит). [...] Вы почитайте обсуждение этой статьи в руВики, там же настоящее хамство от Tempus, в обсуждении других статей руВики такое же хамство Tempus-а, вместо ответов на вопросы – пушинг, вместо обсуждения – забалтывание темы.РуВики давно превратилась в откровенную пропагандистскую помойку правительства РФ благодаря A.Vajrapani Tempus и подобным. Wlbw68 (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC) — link

  About Nicoljaus:

  Tempus fiercely defended this lie (and admins covered it).--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC) — link

  Просьба объяснить участнику Tempus что тут не ру-вики и буллинг вроде такого: "Поскольку с данным участником не представляется возможным ведение какого-либо диалога" [5] тут не уместен.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC) — link

  Tempus (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

A little explanation. In the discussion of the article Alexander Dvorkin today the question of fake degrees that he attributes to himself was raised. In the previous discussion on Ru-wiki, Tempus confidently asserted that Dvorkin went through a certain “nostrification” process and turned the Master of Divinity diploma received in the USA into the degree of Russian candidate of theology. It turned out to be a false information. But, surprisingly, it all ended with the blocking of all opponents of Tempus.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Recommend no action. I cannot see the relevance of the block histories on Russian-language Wikipedia to this discussion. But if they are relevant, then none of you have clean hands:

• Tempus 10 blocks on Russian-language Wikipedia.[6]
• Nicoljaus 14 blocks on Russian-language Wikipedia.[7]
• Wlbw68 23 blocks on Russian-language Wikipedia.[8]

All three of you are capable of making a really good contribution to English-language Wikipedia, because you are smart and knowledgeable. It helps a lot that you have different points of view. Whatever quarrels you had on Russian-language Wikipedia are in the past. Why can't you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass? Toddy1 (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• I just removed some personal attacks and BLP violations (disparaging the subject) from Talk:Alexander Dvorkin and then saw this discussion. I'm wondering if some kind of protection or editing restrictions might be helpful? Woodroar (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Cross-wiki abuse and LTA,see Xu Song (singer) history[9],Foolish history[10] and Vae (name) history[11],same edit to VOA User:韓包子給習當狗,User:MSD214 and Special:Contributions/159.69.0.0/16,proxy IP range[12],please block it,thanks.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Also,please block User:東山有路 and User:Ndwhya,same user to User:韓包子給習當狗,User:Sannosa and User:MSD214,blocked in zh.wiki[13][14],thanks.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • See below in [15],

18:24, 7 November 2019 Wim b talk contribs changed status for global account "User:Every99vain@global": set locked; unset (none) (Long-term abuse: LWCU)

18:23, 7 November 2019 Wim b talk contribs globally blocked User:209.141.45.233 (expiration 18:23, 7 February 2020) (Open proxy)

18:21, 7 November 2019 Wim b talk contribs changed status for global account "User:東山有路@global": set locked; unset (none) (Long-term abuse)

18:21, 7 November 2019 Wim b talk contribs changed status for global account "User:Ndwhya@global": set locked; unset (none) (Long-term abuse)

They use IP 209.141.45.233,this IP has in Special:Contributions/209.141.32.0/19

Above.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 07:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

...but I need a little help. I forgot to uncheck the "move all the subpages too" box when I archived my talk page and now all my archives and a great many other things are incorrectly moved to a destination I don't need them at and I have no idea what exactly I did to get them there or if it can be undone easily. Can someone more familiar with move-related bleep-ups take a look at this and see if they can help get everything off "User:TomStar81/X/Archive 21" and back the way it was? I'd show my appreciation with a barnstar, and you can enjoy the lolz :) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I've put things back to where they were intended. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm currently running a training event using IP 194.66.32.1 My trainees, who are logged in are getting a "You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia" notice, asking them to create an account and log in. Can someone assist, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I've unblocked, can they try again now? GiantSnowman 10:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Perfect. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I was fooling around on Wikipedia the other day, particularly on its website urls, when I accidentally typed "wikipedia.pro" instead of "wikipedia.org", and got redirected to this site named "Deep web". (The link is [here]. This has everything in it from Wikipedia, even [my userpage] with striking accuracy.

However, every mention of Wikipedia is replaced with the phrase "Deep web", and the logo is changed too. The most prominent act of this is it's "Wikipedia" article, shown [here], which is laced with broken images, links and file names due to the rename. I stongly urge you to research into this website further. Note that deepweb.to is the home link, which displays something in Russian about Tor, and search.deepweb.to is the Wikipedia fake.

If all the data accumulated from Wikipedia is also transferred to this site (you can even look up your own name to prove it), would usernames, e-mails and passwords also be transferred here?

Finally, I'll provide you a link to this very message itself in the "Deep web" fake site, right [here].

Thanks. Dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 01:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's

content licence allows for it to be mirrored freely provided the licence stipulations (attribution of authors and releasing the content under an identical licence) are adhered to. Wikipedia mirrors aren't that uncommon and are generally nothing we need to (or can) worry about. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 01:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It's creepy but common, see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

While the above are all true, this doesn't seem to be a typical mirror and fork. They seem to be typosquatting. Also I don't think they're actually really a mirror or fork, they seem to be proxying wikipedia while modifying the content to replace wikipedia with deep web. (Try editing a page.) Fortunately their donate stuff just goes to Wikimedia and their login stuff is broken. (The logo also seems to be the Wikipedia logo. This could be a trademark issue although since they're just proxying, I don't know.) Anyway my point is that in this particularly case the Wikimedia Foundation may be interested in what they're doing and may be willing and able to take action, so I'll let them know. Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

For clarity, by proxying I mean remote loading or a live mirror Meta:Meta:Live mirrors. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's creepy, but there's lots of creepy garbage out there. I did try to edit a page (from inside an incognito window), and quickly got to a screen that said editing was blocked due to using an open proxy. The internet's not a nice place. Sometimes you just need to accept that and move on. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

We are again here after a

I have done so under the strong opinion that when someone is banned, they are not supposed to edit. In my reading, that does not mean that if someone is banned and they edit anyway that we keep their edits.

I am offering these deletions here for review: deletions. My opinion is that leaving their material is what enables, or even encourages, this sock to continue socking. Am I too heavy handed in deleting all material by this sock, even if there are minor edits by others? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The articles were poorly written and I'm not convinced that any of the actual writing was worth keeping or is worth undeleting. But some of them are nevertheless on topics that we should cover. Because they were all deleted suddenly and without warning, it has taken more effort than necessary just to figure out what was deleted and what of it might be worth re-creating with freshly-written and better content, as some of it already has. (Obviously, Beetstra's deletion log is available, but then one has to go through the articles in it one by one to figure out what they were about and separate the notable scientists from the obscure Cameroonian female volleyballers.) What was the hurry in deleting them that would have prevented putting up a notification somewhere of their being deleted, long enough in advance for interested editors to go through them more carefully?

WP:BANREVERT says that even when edits are not substantial, it would be courteous to notify other editors of the articles of their impending deletion. What is the justification for failing to be as courteous as policy requests this time? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all .. where? This is a large variety of articles which turn out that one wikiproject (

much smaller numbers of articles

.

I agree that many (if not all) of these articles are worth having, but I would still argue that we delete the old versions anyway, and then recreate from scratch. That can be done before the mass-deletion, but the effect would (should?) still be the same. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Good deletions. Rather than investigate all of their banned sock edits for legal compliance, just delete the lot and let someone who doesn't have a years-long history of abusing non-free content create them from scratch if they're topics worth having articles about. This sort of circumstance is what we created G5 for. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • My point is it's a lot easier to do what you say (create them from scratch if they're worth it) if we have advance warning of the deletions so that we can tell what is going to be deleted and in need of replacing. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, as DavidE says, it is very much more difficult to deal with the content in articles after they have been deleted--in particular, it is a multi-step process to even view them as distinct from a mouse-over. I regularly check speedy deleted articles, and in fact asked to become an admin in 2007 for this particular purpose; the community must have agreed it's a proper purpose, for I received an almost unanimous vote. . I do not think U5 should be done single-handed unless the content is complete garbage. There is much less chance of error when 2 admin agree. The practical rule for speedy is that nobody would reasonably object, and we see here that DavidE and I have both objected. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    • My point, which might have been lost, is that G5 is there so that when a banned user who is known to create problematic articles socks to create articles, we don't spend unnecessary time scrutinizing the likely-to-be-problematic articles. With this user in particular I would be disinclined to restore an article if another editor wanted to work on it, because there's a high probability it's a copyvio that would need to be revdeleted again anyway. I get what you're saying about review, though. Would it be helpful to be able to access a report of G5-deleted page titles? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

"I agree that many (if not all) of these articles are worth having" ummm, then aren't you

disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point? If you wouldn't send any of these articles to AfD, why would you speedy them? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Because they're created by a banned user, who is banned because most of what they do has been a copyright or NFCC violation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

In that case, they should have been additionally tagged / deleted as G12 - then we would have not needed this discussion. I reviewed the discussion from last year, and note I said pretty much the same thing (hey, at least I'm consistent with my views) and signed off saying "In ten years' time, everyone will have forgotten about the editor, but the article will still be around for people to read, if they want to."Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd note that a significant number of them, as well as being created by a banned user, are also recreations of some of User:Sander.v.Ginkel's BLPs, which were also deleted en masse as possible BLP violations after this ANI discussion in 2016. In the end though, we either have G5 or we don't - should we effectively be saying "yes, it's ok for a banned user to create articles with a sock, as long as they're on a subject that might be notable"? Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I am very much of two minds here. I've dealt with Slowking before, blocked a few socks; I can't remember if I deleted sock articles of theirs--it's been a while. Beetstra has notified me of such socks in the past but again, it's been a while. On the one hand socking is tirritating and we should discourage it. On the other, deleting valid articles (or articles on valid topics) is certainly not a positive thing to do in the short term. The idea of G5 is at least in part to discourage socks (BAM SEE ITS GONE, IT WASN'T WORTH IT, GO AWAY)--but I've always doubted that anyone is discouraged by it. Slowking's article quality was so-so, as far as I remember, I guess it was OK; their block was not over article creation (it was over non-free content, not copyrighted text, AFAIK). That doesn't mean that Beetstra and Ivanvector are wrong in applying G5 and deleting: this is how the policy is written. Let's note that the only caveat is "no substantial edits by others"; usefulness or quality or whatever have no bearing on the matter, even if individual admins (including DGG and me) frequently don't delete useful content just because it would qualify as having been written by a sock.

I think we should probably talk about this at some point and maybe refine G5. We simply cannot ignore that some of that socked content has value. At the same time, let's not jump all over the admin who follows the letter of the policy and at least considers the spirit of the project by posting here. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite, thank you for that comment. That certainly matters, a lot. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, I am torn over the ‘don’t delete the useful articles’, if the CheckUser tool, my edit filters or other editors would have noticed earlier that useful content was not yet created (at least, by a sock). Equally, there is now content that they did not create yet. Banned means: your edits are NOT welcome. This sock is Ambivalent, but lets take this to the other extreme (which is a valid outcome of the suggestions above): a sock that only makes GA quality articles ... keeping all that basically nullifies your ban in that case. Are bans supposed to mean: ‘you are banned, but all your good content is welcome’? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, this is possibly even worse. Have a look at this (admins only I'm afraid). Mirela Bareš was originally created by Sander.v.Ginkel on 11 October 2015, which is also the "retrieved by" date on its only source. Per the Sander.v.Ginkel cleanup, it was moved to Draft:Mirela Bareš on 24 January 2017, and then deleted on 26 April 2017. The sock of Slowking4 re-created it four months later, on 24 August 2017, with exactly the same content right down to the "retrieved 11 October 2015" on the source. In other words, he copied all of these ex SvG articles whilst they were hanging around in draftspace waiting for cleanup (i.e. deletion), in order to drop them straight back into mainspace later on. This means that not only are they G5, but they're also G12 unattributed because the original authors aren't noted. Black Kite (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, G12 does not apply for any copying from free source, including Wikipedia. Instead {{
    CWW}} should be used.--GZWDer (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Sorry, yes, you're right. Fixed. But nevertheless, we shouldn't be restoring any of these (they were, after all, subject to deletion by community consensus) and there's a lot of them. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• And now I'm digging further in. User:Beatley restored hundreds of Sander.v.Ginkel's BLPs during their career here before being blocked for disruptive editing; they just moved SvGs Draft articles back to mainspace and chucked in a hastily-searched-for source, regardless of how good it was (examples: Elena_Arifova, Dinara Aidarova, Paggy Kuttner. None of these pass GNG as they stand. To give you an idea of the problem, there were 2,154 articles in the SvG category "Female Volleyball Players" alone!). Now consider the unusual similarity between his editing timecard here and that of Slowking4's sock here. Another one? Almost certainly yes. Notably, like Slowking4, this editor also actually created a few non-problematic articles as well (mostly stubs, but mostly notable). This is ... a mess. Black Kite (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  I thought we have mass-deleted all Beatley's creations at the time they were blocked as a sock (when I still thought they are an editor in good standing, I gave them several warnings for recreation of SvG articles without sufficient scrutiny). If this has not been done, I suggest that we mass-delete all their creations. I am sure I sampled many of them, and the quality is consistently unacceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  There are hundreds of them. Have a look here, and then keep scrolling. Black Kite (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  I make it approximately 1,500 articles. Black Kite (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  Pinging @Beetstra: as well. Black Kite (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  Black Kite, I note in Slowking4’s LTA that they work to undo the damage done by the community ... that is the Sander van Ginkel case they work on. For some time on one of the wikis, they used ‘Sander van Ginkel’s revenge’ in their signature.

  Yes, they make good content. But keeping it encourages them. And with the last sock I have noted that there is material that has sloppy attribution, I would not be surprised that there is still worse there. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  found it, one of their last edits on commons before they got blocked there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  And if I recall correctly, when I was rechecking my last deletions, some (or at least one) did have an older SvG history. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  Of the first 20-odd ones I checked, at least five or six were SvG. And now we have another 1500+ articles that qualify for G5, most of which are probably in much the same problematic state that SvG left them, and I'm guessing that there are far more. Given that SvG's article creation ran to over 16,000 articles, It would not surprise me if there are more Slowking socks that we haven't unearthed yet. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

  Black Kite, throw anyone suspicious in my direction, and at SPI. I can ‘grade’ them, I know what to look for. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Just weighing in from seeing a related discussion at Women in Red. I have to say, as someone who worked on several CCI cases and having dealt for years with the ItsLassieTime LTA (and hundreds of CCI articles affected by them), I do oppose automatic mass deletion of articles simply because they were sockpuppet creations. We do need to use a case-by-case analysis. To say “let someone who doesn't have a years-long history of abusing non-free content create them from scratch if they're topics worth having articles about” is not helpful. I agree wholeheartedly that there needs to be notice, somewhere (project pages, etc.), as those of us with thousands of articles we’ve worked on may not have everything we ever wikignomed on our watchlists. An adequate-if-not-great article by a banned sock can be tagged for cleanup, it can have errors removed and reduced to a stub, it can be subject to BLP or CCI review. But “punishment” of a sock is cutting off our nose to spite our face. So they brag that they are a valuable contributor; so what? Many people object to a ban based upon their contributions, doesn’t keep them from being banned. We should only mass delete if the content itself is a mass problem. Focus on content not contributor. Montanabw^(talk) 18:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Out of the 16,096 BLP articles that SvG created, 5,374 are still in mainspace [16]. The majority of these are absolutely fine - looking through a random selection, a number of good faith editors have "rescued" them - a number of names come up over and over again. To save a huge amount of work, what we really need is a list of which of those 5,374 were re-instated to mainspace by User:Beatley; so how do we do this? Black Kite (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite, if most of them are recreations of SvG articles ... start deleting from this list Note that earlier on I have not worked as drastic as recently, there may be other socks that still have creations. After working through this list, all remaining pages should be draftified and checked for copyvio. Then the rest should be a decent set to check if there are any missing socks. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

That list isn't really the issue although technically they're G5 if they haven't been touched by anyone else - they are articles actually created by Beatley. The bigger issue is the some 1500 articles which he recreated by moving them back to main space from draft. See my link above. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite, then they probably should be blanket moved back. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Depends. Some of them may have been edited and improved by other editors since. For example, Gabriella Souza. And most of them have been edited since, even if it's just a tag from a bot. Anyway, the list is here (just keep hitting "Next 500". Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite, can you list me some recreations. I do not get why I did not notice that there were recreations. Is it that these pages were moved to draft and then deleted, and then recreated in mainspace? In that case we should abandon or rethink that practice ... Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

No - the SvG articles were all moved to draft to check them for copyvio etc. Beatley moved them back to mainspace before they could be checked, so they don't appear as new articles, just moves. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite, I did note that there were also recreations of SvG articles, and there may also be recreations in mainspace of deleted drafts ... I guess I have to dig. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you see things like this. And there are very many. Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite, so that is in line with my earlier observation of sloppy attribution (which goes here to the extreme of no attribution). Sigh. Not an easy taks to clean up, most of these are basically still SvG as by far most of them do not have significant additions. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to mass-delete all articles that after SvG were only touched by Beatley and possibly by bots (or edited with semi-automatic tools). Other probably would need to be inspected.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. So what we really need is a proper list, otherwise we're spending a lot of time on it. Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

​​​User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Audit notes, specifically User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/Audit notes/Beatley moves, should be helpful here. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Just weighing in from seeing a related discussion at Women in Red. I have to say, as someone who worked on several CCI cases and having dealt for years with the ItsLassieTime LTA (and hundreds of CCI articles affected by them), I do oppose automatic mass deletion of articles simply because they were sockpuppet creations. We do need to use a case-by-case analysis. To say “let someone who doesn't have a years-long history of abusing non-free content create them from scratch if they're topics worth having articles about” is not helpful. I agree wholeheartedly that there needs to be notice, somewhere (project pages, etc.), as those of us with thousands of articles we’ve worked on may not have everything we ever wikignomed on our watchlists. An adequate-if-not-great article by a banned sock can be tagged for cleanup, it can have errors removed and reduced to a stub, it can be subject to BLP or CCI review. But “punishment” of a sock is cutting off our nose to spite our face. So they brag that they are a valuable contributor; so what? Many people object to a ban based upon their contributions, doesn’t keep them from being banned. We should only mass delete if the content itself is a mass problem. Focus on content not contributor. Montanabw^(talk) 18:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

But we are not talking here about sockpuppet creations. We talk about articles which we created by another user (currently blocked) and were substandard. There was consensus of the community that these articles must be inspected and interested users should try to save them. Then, after some period, they were all deleted except for those which were indeed saved (meaning issues corrected). What the sock did was to mark some articles as saved without correcting issues (mainly BLP violations). My suggestion was to mass-delete these. There is already consensus that they must be deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Montanabw Also, many editors combed through these articles looking for ones that were worth improving, as you can see from the fact that over 5,000 still survive. The ones we are talking about here are ones that circumvented a community decision via the machinations of a sock of a banned user. What we need to do now is (a) identify those reinstated by the sock (b) delete the ones that haven't since been improved. The encyclopedia is not helped by the existence of hundreds of one-line stubs that don't pass GNG as they stand (or, as per previously, may have copyvio issues). Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

First I must repeat, most of subjects of SVG's output was not a problem. Those constantly accusing it as such are misleading the discussion. The problem was his copyvio habits. I have rescued many of those articles, the pace of rescuing is a lot slower than the blind, thoughtless process of hiding them in draft or deleting them. Casually looking at the list above, it is a confused mess, as have been the other lists of SVG articles. Its hard to look through and pick which articles are in my wheelhouse to rescue. It takes time. The list above can't even seem to distinguish between SVG created articles and a similar mass creation editor of the past, Darius Dhlomo, who's articles I have also had to rescue. These articles have a taint of their originator that lasts beyond the contributions of others including myself. We definitely need a list of which articles are still considered (by whatever powers that be) to be vulnerable so we can prioritize re-re-rescuing of these. How do we clear off the stink of the creator of the article? The vast majority of these articles are lesser known Olympic and World Championship participating athletes. Yes many are stubs and after removing the copyvio are poorly sourced, but the do serve a purpose. Years later, I've cross-referenced to such articles when the same subject turns up elsewhere. Its a good place to hand that information which would not even be noticeable if the original stub didn't exist. How many others could I have added to, had the name come up, because of the deletion and hiding, we will never know. And if other editors or experts in other sports or related fields were as diligent as I, we would be adding to the world's knowledge about these people. Building an encyclopedia. Remember, that's what we are doing here. Deleting otherwise non-controversial content is not productive to that goal. Trackinfo (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You're missing some main points. First, the articles created by the Slowking sock

WP:BLP. That's another reason why they were moved out of mainspace in the first place. "Building an encyclopedia" should not include letting dubiously-sourced BLPs sit around in mainspace, and more pertinently we should never suggest that is is perfectly OK to let banned users edit if they are "producing content". That makes a nonsense of having any such things as blocks and bans. Black Kite (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You like broad sweeping approaches to accomplish this mass deletion of content. No thought, just prejudice it on who created it, they must be a liar. I don't know the source you cast aspersions upon, but I have watched similar prejudice cause a groundswell of negative opinion to attempt to and occasionally succeed in wiping out other legitimate content. Again based on my survey of SVG created content, almost all of it would stand up to the scrutiny of

WP:RS. When you get to countries that, bagging on the stupidity of my own country, most Americans couldn't locate on a map, the main newspaper, the primary news sources coming out of that country might be Facebook or Twitter or other freebie service. You have to try, you have to look, you have to think. If you don't think, all these massive deletion ideas, however you phrase them are thought less. Trackinfo (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming bad faith of everyone who doesn't agree with you. "But we have

WP:CSD#G5 because they were recreated by Slowking4 socks. But regardless, should we do that? Now if this was a small number of articles, then yes, it won't take long and it's probably worth doing. But we don't have a small number of articles here, and we have BLP to think about. So what do we do? "Any editor worth their google should be able to find corroborating sources for someone of that stature." Well, for what it's worth, I did actually try to find other sources for a number of the volleyball players. I did ten, in fact. I found a number of sources for one of them, and I'll fix her article when I have time. I found a few sources for three of the others, but mostly of the list type that merely prove they are a volleyball player. For the remaining six - nothing apart from Wikipedia mirrors. But hey, as you say, I'm not an expert. The problem is that what SvG originally did was obviously this - he found lists of the country squads for volleyball championships. He then created hundreds of identical articles with "*name* is a volleyball player. They were a member of *country* squad at the *year* championships. They played for *local team*". He added the (dubious) source. And that's it. No-one is saying that all of these articles are worthless; they're clearly not. My suggestion is that the ones recreated by Slowking4 socks be dropped back to draft to be checked, which is what happened the first time round with SvG. And then we're not in danger of losing anything useful. Black Kite (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

If you are not here to delete the content good step 1. Step 2, put it in a form it can be found, a list of draft articles made from SVG content. If they are all volleyball players, even add that keyword to the title of the list so it can be recognized by future editors. When these names come up in future competitions, hopefully a future editor will be able to tie the two together. What I saw of the list mentioned above is a garble of thousands of names with no reference to what they are. Perhaps they can be categorized into a useful list. The old lists contain the thousands of rescued names mixed in with the drafts and redirects and a confusing mess that makes it overwhelming; difficult for editors to tackle. These need to be done one by one, but which one do you do first? Here's an out of the box idea, set up an automated process to tell us how many google hits a particular name gets. A name with 3 FB hits might not be that notable of a person. 3,000 hits, maybe this deserves some attention. Most important, if an article is vulnerable to deletion, lets put that into a place where it can be addressed first. Even easier, add a category so it will show up as an edit in the article. I think I watch the articles I have rescued, at least most of them. I want to know if my work is potentially going to be deleted, just because somewhere along the line a tainted editor once touched the article. Whatever the rationale, don't use a sneaky speedy to mass-delete content behind our backs. Trackinfo (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Trackinfo, this whole "somewhere along the line" and all that is just wrong. No, "your work" won't be deleted because a "tainted editor" touched it, and these aren't "sneaky speedies". Sheesh. What is this, some conspiracy theory? Drmies (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Atttract user on talk page

• Awesome Aasim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jjj1238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2 editors, one is newest editor they're try to attract me on my talk page everyday, can any Admin check this situation? or have any advice how to do about this that they didnt stop to try to attract me.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

OP blocked x 24 hrs for disruptive editing. This is starting to look like a serious

WP:CIR fail. Courtesy ping Drmies. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that editor. Yeah. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

And I guess this report was merely retributive. "Weaponizing ANI" I think it's called.

54129 15:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129, indeed. Do you have any suggestions? All I seem to be able to do is thrown around blocks, and if I suggest someone might get blocked if they continue, they just continue and then get blocked. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@

54129 16:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just an idiot, because this took me some time to figure out, but to save other idiots some confusion: The OP means "attack". --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, what a shame, I had almost thought this to have become an ANI report because another user wasn't attracted to this one. What an ironic case of

WP:CIR. -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 16:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:Companionship Is Required...?

54129 17:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Some users just need a hug. Alternatively: WikiDate: collaboratively find love! Notable love only, please provide reliable sources.

talk to the boss) 17:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, Now I'm confused. I thought OP was "Original Poster"??? — Ched (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ched, yes. Evrdkmkm, who opened the thread, said they're try to attract me on my talk page but meant they're try[ing] to [attack] me on my talk page. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not a big fan of CIR blocks as there is no way to not sound insulting. But setting aside all of the other issues, this editor's command of English really does beg the question of their basic ability to contribute constructively. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT). The option I can think of is a 3-6 month block and just be plain about it, that they need to have a better command of the language to contribute here. I'm hesitant to suggest simple.wiki because I don't think we want to push our problems off on to a sister project. On a personal level - you could put it off and I'm sure another admin. with a more ... analytical viewpoint will do the block. — Ched (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It has been about a week since this incident and I think the risk of disruption has been reduced now. Will continue providing guidance and will file another report if this issue persists. Thanks 🙂 Awesome Aasim 02:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Block IP 548549

Resolved

 – Already listed at

WP:AIV

.

Block to 2a02:a44e:622b:1:9420:c2ca:43f:e1f3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viampira (talk • contribs) 11:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

You've already reported this IP to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. There is no need to duplicate it here. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Changes to CheckUser team (Beeblebrox)

By motion, the Arbitration Committee restores the CheckUser permission to Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Support: GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, KrakatoaKatie, Mkdw, Worm That Turned

Oppose: None

Not voting: AGK, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos

Katie^talk 16:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Changes to CheckUser team (Beeblebrox)

Davide King unblock request

Having secured support from the blocking admin, I have unblocked Davide King. Hopefully, third time's the charm! El_C 02:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all, would someone please take a look at this unblock request User_talk:Davide_King#Unblock_request_(14_October_2019). It's been in the queue for a few months. I personally endorse the unblock but have worked with the editor before and requested a third party to review. The editor is here to collaborate productively but appears to be caught in a bureaucratic wormhole. (Please centralize discussion on that talk page.) Thanks, czar 14:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• User Davide King's edits are mostly helpful. Therefore, I think it’s worth unblocking him. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

---

I'm leaning toward unblocking for, granted, a third chance for this user, but will confer with the blocking admin first. El_C 02:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A user must be blocked

IP editor blocked by Materialscientist for vandalism Nosebagbear (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I noticed that this user has done nothing other than vandalizing articles randomly. For instance, this edit proves that they want nothing but bad contribution to this website. 183.109.17.172 (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked by Materialscientist. Thank you for reporting this, but it's best to report vandals to

WP:AIV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to create redirects

(

talk to the boss) 13:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've created

Your Neighbours the Niggers. Dsp13 (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone tell me if the content added in this hidden diff is still in Jagannath?

Great, that makes my job easier. Thanks @

Help out at CCI! 15:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)(non-admin closure

)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here. It's

Help out at CCI! 15:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@

Money emoji: I'm not seeing any of that text in the current revision. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block Elmaqah

Dealt with by ST47. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 06:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Elmaqah (talk · contribs)

Hi I want to an admin to block Elmaqah. It was an account that I created in my early days in Wikipedia, when I got signed off from Wikipedia (for an unknown reason) and I forgot my password, I created that account, I was not aware of sock policy and I didn’t use it wrongly. I made 8 edits with it and when I remembered my password I returned back to this account and I never made any edit using Elmaqah again.

Elmaqah's edits

• 17 November 2018 (2 edits)
• 18 November 2018 (1 edit)
• 19 November 2018 (1 edit)
• 21 November 2018 (1 edit)
• 6 December  2018 (2 edits)
• 7 December 2018 (1 edit)

6 days and 8 edits

During that time I was not able to login my account and my last edit there before I got signed off and I forgot my password was in 13 November 2018 and after I was able to login my account and I remembered my password I made an edit in 11 December 2018(check) since then I never made any edit using Elmaqah account. Also I wasn’t blocked that time.(check)

--SharabSalam (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Can you log in to that account and add {{User alternative account|SharabSalam}} to its user page, in order to verify this request? ST47 (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

ST47, Done. I am not going to use Elmaqah again so I dont need it.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

And done. ST47 (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!--SharabSalam (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism-only account

Sock Twister indeffed for vandalism by Hut 8.5 Nosebagbear (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is in regards to User:Sock Twister. Doesn't seem to have made any constructive edits and has continued disruption in spite of a previous warning.
Alivardi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked. For future reference you can report users who should be blocked for vandalism to
  WP:AIV. Hut 8.5 21:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor with a COI states they will not "fill out your forms"

WP:PAID. Their reply was "'.I have no interest in filling out your forms. I've made my "connection to the subject" clear, several times now, and have ceased adding factual information to the subject's page, as you requested. But go ahead and ban me if you want to prevent me from correcting misrepresentations of facts related to the subject on this talk page".[17] I can't see any other option but to block them, but to avoid them claiming I'm biased against Hopkins I think another Admin should decide whether to block. To clarify, this editor is acting on behalf of Hopkins, who has published an attack on editors editing his page. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

If the connection is as clear as they state, then we can add in the COI/{{paid}}/{{connected contributor (paid)}} tags; all we need is a diff to point to as verification. I'm only about halfway through Talk:CJ Hopkins but it does appear that they at least recognize they have a COI and have stopped editing the article. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, technically,

WP:PAID says, You must disclose... (my emphasis). Us adding a template to their user page is a accusation. What the TOU requires is a disclosure. Not the same thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Right, if they have disclosed (whether using a template or not) then we should be satisfied. I didn't see them do that explicitly but I only did a quick search of the talk page linked above. My point was that if they have done a disclosure-without-template, then we can add in that template ("filling out the form" as they say) and link to the diff where they disclosed. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

FWIW: this is the only diff I can find that comes close to acknowledging a conflict, but it doesn't say anything about paid editing, and the user is actually claiming to be an account run by more than one person. I sort of doubt that consentfactory.org actually has one person, much less multiple paid staffers dedicated to supervising Wikipedia pages. Whatever the nature of the conflict is, the editor hasn't been forthright about it on Wikipedia yet. Nblund ^talk 18:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Update: the editor has denied paid editing. Nblund ^talk 18:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

One can have a COI without being paid for it. Roy, would you consider the first diff Nblund gave as being enough for a {{connected contributor}} attribution? Primefac (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to respectfully decline to answer that. I consider people using wikipedia to promote their commercial interests to be antithetical to our mission. As such, I don't think it's the place of volunteers to drag people, kicking and screaming, into compliance with our policies, so we can justify their continued abuse. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked them. The lack of disclosure is kind of beside the point, since they're a single-purpose account only here to disruptively 'patrol' the article on Hopkins' behalf, and they've had plenty of warnings. But for what it's worth this page (which Königubu linked to on Talk:CJ Hopkins) describes their "job title" as "in-house Wikipedia Liaison". If someone also wants to add some COI tags that's fine by me, but as Roy says, it's not our job to enable disruptive editors. – Joe (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyvios from Dutchy85

I just reverted this copyvio this user added to

Help out at CCI! 22:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I have reviewed the copyvio edit, as well as some of this user's history, and decided to indef block Dutch85 to prevent further damage to the project. Discussion can (and probably should) continue here regarding what to do with this user long-term. It doesn't seem likely to me that they will ever stop adding copyrighted material to articles. (Also,

WP:ANI might be a more appropriate venue for this discussion.) ‑Scottywong| [confer] || 01:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I've also removed autopatrolled. Given their history, if they are unblocked, their edits will need to be check for copyright violations. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse block per
  WP:CIR. User has been given ample opportunities to correct their behavior and has failed every single time. Enough is enough. -FASTILY 02:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

History merge needed

Would someone kindly do a history merge of

Los Rios District into Los Rios Historic District? These were duplicative articles about the same subject. I've merged all the material from the former into the latter, but the histories need to be merged Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope, it's not needed here ... history merges are only for *strict* cut-and-paste moves where the entire content of one page has been moved by cut and paste to a second page, not page merges. Graham87 06:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Please look again, a complete cut-and-paste move was made from

Los Rios Street Historic District, then, when I realized that the actual name of the district is "Los Rios Historic District" (i.e. no "Street"), I moved the resulting article to Los Rios Historic District. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff showing this complete cut-and-paste move? I've searched the histories of both pages during the time they existed at the same time and I can find no such thing. The diff would appear something like this, but obviously not with those particular revisions. A diff showing a complete cut-and-paste move would show gvery little or no change. Graham87 05:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't expect the

Spanish Inquisition

.

• Removal of material from
  Los Rios District: [18]
• Addition of material to
  Los Rios Street Historic District: [19]

Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

So the diff you get by combining the last version of "Los Rios District" and the first post-merge one of "Los Rios Historic District" is, as I thought, this one ... nope, no history merge needed, as it's a normal page merge. You can always ask at

the actual place for these requests, but I'm pretty sure you'll get the same response. Graham87 06:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if there's some confusion on the part of

2019 Mindanao earthquakes, and cut all the content from the former page and paste it into the latter page while turning the former into a redirect to the latter, then this is a cut and paste move. If no one notices and immediately reverts, then we have a problem since editors are going to start editing the 2019 Mindanao earthquakes page. Edit history for this article will now be on two pages, 2019 Mindanao earthquakes and 2019 Cotabato earthquakes. This edit history needs to merged.

OTOH, if I create 2019 Mindanao earthquakes not realising that 2019 Cotabato earthquakes exists and edit it and some other editors find my article and also edit it. Meanwhile other editors continue to edit 2019 Cotabato earthquakes. Eventually someone notices and merges the content. Regardless of whether they cut and paste any of the content, this is still not a cut and paste move. It's a normal merge and does not need a history merge since it will create more confusion. Instead it just needs to be properly noted what happened (preferably in the edit history of both pages and via a template in both talk pages) per WP:Copying within Wikipedia to comply with the licence terms and for fairness to all contributors.

By the same token if I create an article 31 October 2019 Cotabato earthquake and me and a bunch of other editors expand it greatly. Meanwhile no one adds anything to the 2019 Cotabato earthquakes article about the 31 October. Eventually someone comes along and points out there's no need for the 31 October 2019 article, and all the content is cut and pasted verbatim into the 2019 Cotobato earthquakes article since there's nothing there on the part of the 31 October 2019 earthquake. Again, although the content was cut and pasted even completely cut and pasted, this is merge. It's not a cut and paste move. You could call it a cut and paste merge if you want although that risks causing unnecessary confusion IMO. Regardless, it does not need a history merge as again that just creates unnecessary confusion. Instead properly note what happened in each article. AFAIK even if there was zero change to the 2019 Cotabato earthquakes between the period the 31 October article was created until the content was merged, it still considered better not to perform a history merge. It will still confuse editors why the content on all the other earthquakes suddenly disappeared while the 31 October earthquake was worked on, then came back later.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh I should note that in some cases someone tries to revert a cut and paste move, but doesn't entirely succeed or maybe someone else partially reverts them. And now people are working on 2 different articles about the same thing but in this case, what started as one article with one edit history is now two articles on the same thing with 2 distinctive edit history from that point forth. In that case while it is a cut and paste move attempt, it can be complicated what to do. It depends a lot on how much editing there was in the interim in each article and admin discretion etc AFAIK. Nil Einne (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Backlog

There is currently a backlog at

WP:RFP/R, ten requests (including my own) there haven't received a response yet. I would very much appreciate it if any admin could take a look at this! TheAwesomeHwyh 04:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Now cleared by Beeblebrox and me, but please do not forget to check this page from time to time.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Block review requested

A deserved block, handed down by EvergreenFir and now indeffed by El_C--DBigXray 08:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• BongBing321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nick Fuentes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone please review my block of this user? As the user is editing on American Politics, I'd like a second opinion (and feel free to unblock if you feel it is appropriate). I primarily blocked for the REVDELed edit but also the repeated non-RS edits. I felt this was clear cut enough, but I figured it best to check with others. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

If anything, it was too lenient. I've up'd the duration to indefinite. El_C 04:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Well! Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amtrak Sunset Limited Sections Deleted

The Amtrak Sunset Limited sections dealing with railroad subdivisions and cities served were deleted without my knowledge or warning. What I wrote on the edit was factual based on several sources, that I did quote. I wrote these section yesterday Monday November 11, 2019, this is Tuesday November 12, 2019. The work I put nearly five hours in to assure accuracy was erased. This is censorship of someones work that actually cared about accuracy and factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericabaker63 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The page in question appears to be Sunset Limited. This appears to be run of the mill editing stuff. I'd suggest you raise your concerns at Talk:Sunset Limited, and find a consensus. I'd also suggest that it's important to remember Wikipedia is a collaboratively written project, and engaging with hostility, accusing people of censorship, and the like, usually leads to poor outcomes. The edits remain in the history, so nothing has been "lost". WilyD 12:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Slow edit war and challenge to my posted warnings

• Cresscoriander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Drover's Wife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• talk | history | links | watch | logs
  )

Sustainable Australia with The Drover's Wife

, an experienced editor.

I created

Talk:Sustainable Australia#Edit war with this edit

after doing some claenup on the talk page, restoring a comment improperly deleted. Cresscoriander has not posted since. The Drover's Wife reverted once more on the article, and posted to the talk page calling my intervention "not helpful". We had some back and forth, in which TDW said that my comments (including a mention of the possibility of a block for continued edit-warring was "disruptive" and nearly the same as doign paid editing myself.

I ask that one or more other admins review the situation and indicate if they think I am being heavy-handed or otherwise out of line. I think it is well known that I am not the quickest admin with the block button, but anyone can make a mistke, and perhaps I have. I will notify the editors mentioned promptly. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

We've had long-running problems for years with minor Australian political parties attempting to write their own articles. It's extremely frustrating for regular Wikipedians, because the people trying to do it are invariably more invested in "I want to promote myself" than we are with "actually, you shouldn't be trying to use Wikipedia to promote yourselves". It's disingenuously portrayed as edit warring, as if the person trying to do the self-promotion and the Wikipedian trying to get them not to have completely equally reasonable positions. I don't actually get anything out of trying to stop self-promotion besides a desire to try and keep the quality up on a broad topic I've spent thousands of hours working on. And this kind of attitude has consequences - we've suffered immense editor burnout in this general area, in no small part because these situations (of which we're up to at least twenty involving different parties over time) are so damn tiring to resolve - editors know that if they try to stop this stuff, the self-promoters won't stop, admins won't back them up and will just label it an edit war like it's a content dispute, and they'll get...what, for all their trouble? There is a direct connection between this kind of use of administrative tools and self-promotional editing being left untouched on a large scale. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Hi DESiegel, in regards to the comment I deleted on the talk page, I did so because it was unsigned, and I thought it was politically charged and unhelpful. I have since read the talk page guidelines which (I think) you shared and I see that this is a grey area. Thats fine, no issue I'll leave it if thats what you think should be done. In regards to the "slow edit war" and TDW, I'm certainly not trying to engage in any sort of war, merely improve a page but obviously TDW has issues with what I have done. I'll address those issues on the Sustainable Australia talk page. Cresscoriander (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sustainable Australia constituted edit warring, and were not justified, particularly when you mad no attempt to raise whatever you felt were the issues here on the article talk page? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel I am understanding the concept of edit warring more fully now. I just meant to convey that it was not my intent to engage in an edit war. I thought because I had provided a sensible rationale for my edits and that TDW had not provided any for her reversions that my behaviour was ok. I understand that the way forward is to engage in a discussion on the talk page to reach consensus and that's what I will do. TDW is alleging my edits to be COI and self promotion - I'm not sure where this is coming from. I believe my edits to adhere strongly to the NPOV principle. I would absolutely welcome further input from more experienced wikipedia editors on my edits, and TDW's reversions.Cresscoriander (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Phrases like "website highlights" are not exactly neutral nor particularly relevant.©Geni (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Offensive edit summary by IP vandal

Can someone please delete this edit summary I found yesterday on the Rape (disambiguation) page, which is highly offensive and disturbing. It's strange (in my opinion) that the ClueBot did not come across this before. Thanks. CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. If you see more of this, let me know. Going by the logs, I've cleaned up after this vandal before. What a pain. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing, thanks again! CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Bullying IP users

• CentralTime301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Spicyeater2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

iQiyi, the show's official streaming platform. This user is obviously over-stepping his rights as an editor (by trying to act like an admin) and bullying ip address users and threatening them with vandalism notices to scare them off. 41.204.44.162 (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

No comment on the edits, but nothing CentralTime301 did was "trying to act like an admin" - they posted warning templates to a talk page, which is perfectly normal for non-admins.

talk to the boss) 19:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

What? I thought it was vandalism. Cheers! CentralTime301 17:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

IP address has been reporting me

An IP address has been reporting me just because I bullied an IP; I thought it was vandalism. Cheers! CentralTime301 17:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)