Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005

Regarding this case – Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Frenchie vandal – I think we need to have a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/31.52.191.70/24 because of continuing disruption. All the edits from that range are surely the Frenchie vandal going back to October 2018, so it looks like we would not suffer collateral damage.

Recent disruption has resulted in two blocks.[9][10] A rangeblock would better protect the wiki. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Binksternet, take a look at Special:Contributions/31.52.190.0/23 (the 190.0/24 looks like the same as 191.0/24).
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Your suggestion of the range 190.0/23 is better, as it catches more of the disruption, roughly 300 edits by the Frenchi vandal, whereas the 191.0/24 is about 150 edits by Frenchie. Binksternet (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done for a year as anonblock.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• b
  } 16:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • In the absence of diffs, I'm going to say that it's reasonable per
    MOS:OVERLINK to unlink things like fire, water, and sunlight. Mackensen (talk)
    17:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, I routinely unlink common words such as those. There may be certain contexts where such links are useful - I don't think that's the case in any of my recent edits. We can discuss specific examples. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

You're indiscriminately unlinking

b

} 17:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb is pretty much spot on with this statement, especially the part about having to come here to force discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who's reading an article on the Stefan–Boltzmann law may be assumed to be familiar with the concept of time: they're not there for a philiosophical discussion on the nature of time. That would be helpful in some contexts, but not this one. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Time is specifically mentioned as a physical concept. That is a topical link, not just "after some time, the thing happened"

b

} 17:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to quote the full sentence here:

"Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time ${\displaystyle j^{\star }}$ (also known as the black-body

radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature

T:

There's nothing there that would require any reader to have a grasp of the concept of time beyond the everyday understanding. There are several technical terms there that are rightly linked, but 'time' is not one of them. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC).

Links are not there only when the reader doesn't know what something is. Links are there when they are topical.

b

} 17:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

A quote from

• Quite a few are disputable. "English language" is OK here. "Altitude" might not always be obvious, especially to non-English speakers [13]. "Netherlands" is always worth linking, especially given the confusion with "Holland" [14]. Some of the the edit-summaries are not always accurate - this one claims it's changed "Hansel and Gretel" to the opera, which it hasn't (which is just as well, as the story is correct). So, yeah, it's not terrible automatic editing, but it could be improved a bit. Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The offical tourism site for the Netherlands is www.holland.com Legacypac (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Altitude" is just an ordinary English word, not a technical term:
  "The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar". Yes, the edit summary was misleading, but no incorrect edit was made (I undid it before saving). Colonies Chris (talk
  ) 17:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Altitude is a relatively ordinary word, yes, but this is a topic related to atmospheric entry, and is something that is very much dependent on altitude. Again, the link is germane and topical.

b

} 17:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep. If I may borrow a perfect summation: "Links are not there only when the reader doesn't know what something is. Links are there when they are topical." Just because you don't elder the topicalityif a link in an article you e never edited before does not mean the link should a automatically removed because it's a common word. Removing a link to time from any article on a time-dependent physics concept reveals simply that one shouldn't be editing that article in the first place as they lack the competence regarding the subject area. oknazevad (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, links aren't only for when the reader doesn't known something. They are there for when something is important to the topic. Removing a link to time from an article on time-dependent physics is beyond crazy and as oknazevad says indicates not having knowledge of the subject. -DJSasso (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I think one key point here is that these mass edits should stop once anyone objects with a reasonable rationale. Not all articles are the same, and we really don't need this kind of one-size-fits-all approach which changes thousands of articles a week. I particularly object to the reconfiguration of piped links to redirects, under some pretence of "NOTBROKEN" yet many of these pipes were created as such, and the violation of NOTBROKEN is actually that being committed by these runs of thousands of semi-automated edits. And I have seen examples of times when user will wait until the article is "out of mind" before reasserting the edits. There's no real excuse for continuing to edit time after time against consensus, or even against one reasonable complaint, yet it continues time after time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I see no-one has addressed the crucial question I quoted above from

And what seems clear from above is that numerous editors here believe that the items you are delinking would help someone. You, on the other hand, disagree with those multiple editors and continue to edit against them, hundreds of times a day. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No, no-one has claimed, for example, that a link to 'time' would be helpful. They're just insisting that it should be linked simply because it's important. And that's not how we do linking - that's been settled policy for many years. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the point is that you're making semi-automated edits, masses of them, to enforce something subjective in each and every case. I think we can all agree that's an unwise use of a semi-automated tool. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Would Chris perhaps agree to voluntarily stop making semi-automated edits? Deb (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

In the case of my comments important = helpful. I am guessing that is the case for others as well. -DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm with Colonies Chris on this one. I have not yet seen one example of a removed link that was useful to keep. As above, the Stefan-Boltzmann link to 'time' is to the top-level general-audience encyclopedia article on time. Not even any technically subtle meaning for time within some narrower and more relevant context. I can't see any use to it, even worth the slight annoyance of increasing the bluelink density (and thus diluting the prominence of the major links). Is a link to the Netherlands needed, in case it's confused with Holland? No, because neither of those have any substantial relevance to the topic. "The Low Countries" would be adequate, so long as some vague notion of "the 17th century Western European coastal bit that wasn't England" was in there. We don't need links to convey that.

Small trout for failure to discuss earlier.

As to "semi-automated tools", then I have no idea what they are using, and it is entirely irrelevant. It also raises a real frown (and gets my fish-bucket arm twitching) to see other editors trying to stoke up an ANI on that basis, having failed to make a case as to the links themselves. Is there any credible claim that Chris' automated tool (if indeed there is one!) is malfunctioning? Is it making edits that they would not otherwise wish?

There are two questions here: should the links stay or go? is it mis-use of an automated tool? The first is obviously subjective, but neither have any real support. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI, the tool is AWB, and it's use is not entirely irrelevant. If, per Headbomb, it is being used to make "indiscriminate edits" at high volumes, then it ought not to be, especially when requests to desist have come from multiple editors in this case alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

As anyone can see from my contributions to the discussion above, these are not 'indiscriminate' edits. I can justify every one of them, with reference to long-settled linking policies. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Other than making these edits more easily, AWB has only made the same edits that Chris would have made anyway. You still have not shown any "random 'bot-generated" edits in addition, or that any of these deliberately chosen edits were themselves wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• I don't quite follow you, I didn't say anything about "random 'bot-generated" (sic) edits. I was simply referring to the hundreds of edits per day performed using a semi-automated tool to enforce personal preference. As noted above by other editors. I think your diverging from the point. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Both Headbomb and yourself have described these edits as "indiscriminate". Headbomb has termed Chris a "Malfunctioning
  WP:MEATBOT
  :". Yet neither of you have shown any evidence of the three possible complaints you might make: that they were at all "indiscriminate" (as opposed to deliberate, on a subjective but policy-compliant reading of WP:OVERLINK); that they were against WP:OVERLINK or other established practice; or that were a mis-use of any automated tool. You complain about "personal preference", but on no grounds: personal preference is permissible here (and if you dislike it, see WP:BRD, rather than ANI). This also sits rather poorly, given your own recent visit to ANI over CITEVAR vs. Johnbod, a situation when we do have a guideline against your choices in editing.

More importantly here, you have shown no evidence for an abuse of automated tools, but you're trying to deflect the failure of your first claim as to content onto a double jeopardy to catch Chris that way instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Good try on the red herring, the Johnbod situation was enlightening as it became clear that actually defending that particular CITEVAR position was actually incorrect, interesting to see your interpretation too. But in any case, trying to drag that back up here really does sit poorly... (oh ho ho, and it wasn't me making any kind of "first claim", and I didn't bring this to ANI, and BRD is fine if someone is asked to stop making semi-automated edits but they don't!). You've missed the point a number of times and yet given your preponderance to change the subject onto me, I see no real good reason to continue the discussion. It's so easy to just derail any conversation because I'm involved. So on that, enough from me. I'm sure we'll be back here in due course on similar grounds. And now making the same old edits but suppressing AWB's edit summaries? Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Jayzus. Get a room, why doncha. Qwirkle (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I have recently crossed paths with User talk: Topfool16. Their talk page is full of warnings regarding improper images uploads and they seem to not care even though most of their uploads get deleted. There are messages questioning what they are doing, that get no response. This sums up the bulk of their image uploads. I recently reported to AIV for adding unsourced content after a final warning, but the report went stale. I feel like something should be done about this user. StaticVapor message me! 02:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Lack of communication and I fear there may be some language barrier as well causing the user to never change their behavior despite issues. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Looks like a content dispute. More dif's please. Why are we here? Wrestling or images? They are commenting via edit summaries and have messaged OP. Last edit was 5 days ago. DlohCierekim

• It is not about "content", but the users lack of understanding of copyright and fair use images as illustrated by his numerous warnings on his talk page. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• User:Dlohcierekim, I said nothing of content dispute or wrestling in this post. If you check out the users talk page it's full of image copyright warnings. That is what this report is referring to.StaticVapor message me! 17:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, this is not a content dispute and has nothing to do with the fact that this editor works on professional wrestling topics. I do not see the communication by edit summaries that you report. This block is for the specific unacceptable behaviors that I described above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Cullen328, Thank you for giving this issue attention. StaticVapor message me! 10:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Here is where I left a block rationale effectively indeffing (though only blocking for a year) an IP editor who has had multiple blocks for disruptive editing relating to Ben Swann. The block I made was on the grounds that:

• their edits to articles had a
  WP:FRINGE ideas: for example, vaccines and autism, removing "conspiracy theory" when describing the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, saying that children dying at Sandy Hook is just an "account"
• they had wasted a lot of other editors' time and patience outside of articles: when it's clear that consensus isn't going to go their way, they look for any reason to keep arguing. I've seen minimal acceptance of others' input from this IP, only enough to avoid trouble.

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Good block - we don't need more Infowars puppets here. The IP is static, I say the block lengths should be measured in years. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• @Ian.thomson: Just a note, but you only blocked the IP for a month. Nihlus 4:04 pm, Today (UTC−5)

 Fixed Ian.thomson (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Good block (the corrected one :-)), since the IP is static. Miniapolis 23:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Shoot I guess maybe it's just me. I don't understand how changing from...

This: Swann created the series, Reality Check, which he used to espouse

Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings and the 9/11 attacks

.

To this: Swann created the series, Reality Check, where he devoted a segment to promoting

Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings and the 9/11 attacks

.<ref name=haberman />

...is indef-block-worthy. Another editor just made a similar change, perhaps because it's per the source [15], which says: Ben Swann is an award-winning television journalist who, on his own YouTube channel, raised questions about the collapse of one of the buildings at the World Trade Center and about official accounts of the 2012 mass shooting in Sandy Hook, Conn.. Similarly, I don't understand how changing Russian propaganda to Russian narrative is indef-block-worthy, when both words are used multiple times by the source (as discussed on the talk page). I don't mean to argue content at ANI, but I don't want to get myself blocked for POV-pushing, so maybe someone can explain to me what policy these edits violate. Is it required that in every article, every time we mention Pizzagate we must put "conspiracy theory" in front of it, or every time we mention anti-vaxxing we must say it's "false"? Even if it's not the subject of the article at issue, and even if the source we're citing doesn't say it? And if we disagree about it on the talk page, we get blocked? Leviv ich 00:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Not commenting on the block (because I haven't looked at the details), but Levivich, the immediate prior sentence in the source to the one you quoted (Ben Swann is an award-winning...) is ...a journalist who has highlighted conspiracy theories about major news events to make its case. and the crux of the source article is that the subject is a "Conspiracy-Minded Journalist" and therefore it was a surprise that he was picked by a mainstream politician. So IMO leaving out 'conspiracy theory' in wikipedia's version would indeed be a subpar summary of the source being cited. Abecedare (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare, to be clear, there are two different edits, weeks apart (the diffs cited for this block are from Jan 29, Feb 14, and Mar 4). The one I quoted above was the Jan 29 one, described above as saying that children dying at Sandy Hook is just an "account". Here is the Feb 14 one, which is the one described above as removing "conspiracy theory":

From: Swann created the series, Reality Check, which he used to espouse

ISIL

, and other prevailing opinions about geopolitics and whether vaccines cause autism.

To: Swann created the series, Reality Check, where he devoted a segment to promoting

ISIL

, and other prevailing opinions about geopolitics and whether vaccines cause autism.

The phrase "conspiracy theories" was kept by the editor, just moved from the first sentence to the second. Both edits distinguish between what was said on the Reality Check show and what was said on his personal YouTube channel, and that is per the source cited. It doesn't seem to me like the edits change the meaning of the paragraph from "conspiracy theorist" to "not conspiracy theorist", particularly since that phrase was removed in the Jan edit but kept in the Feb one. Now, if it were up to me, I would put "conspiracy theorist" in the lead, but that's not the point. Content disputes are normal–I'm questioning why this is indef-block-worthy. I was recently involved in POV disputes about ISIS and illegal immigrant crime. In both those AfDs, there was wide-ranging agreement of a POV issue, but no admin came and blocked anyone. Instead, posts were made to ANI about "what to do" (they are still on this board right now). But in the case of this IP, it was an admin-placed block without community discussion first. I don't understand the difference. But I appreciate Ian opening up this thread and if it's just me, I'll stop. Leviv ich 00:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: In isolation, each of the IP's edits can be considered edit-disputes but looking at their complete edit-history, starting from May 2018, I see a pattern of civil POV-pushing in which they try to minimize the "conspiracy theorizing" aspect of the subject's journalism.

Such patterns are clearly problematic but when exactly to pull the plug and go from discussion to sanctions is always a judgment call. For example, IMO the IP remained unblocked for so long because afaict they were always civil and didn't cross red-lines such as 3RR. And, as you point out, in the "illegal immigrants and crime case", discussion on the appropriate sanctions is still ongoing, IMO, because the editor involved is (unlike the IP) far from an SPA. I rather think that, at least in theory, this disparity is a positive feature of wikipedia administration since our aim is not "same time for same crime" fairness but to tailor our response to what we think is best for the purpose of building an encyclopedia.

Anyway, it would be best to move such philosophical discussions off the busy central boards, and unless there are any more objections to the IP's block this section can perhaps be closed. Abecedare (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Per Abecedare, taking any one edit in isolation and saying "this one edit here is not something we block a person over" is, of course, always going to be true, and always going to be a very poor defense against a block. A multi-yearmonth ed: corrected per below, POV-pushing, tendentious editor who isn't interested in presenting a neutral narrative based on mainstream understanding of the world, but instead will use a multitude of small, incremental, minor changes to gradually shape the tone and narrative towards their own POV and against the mainstream understanding of something is EXACTLY the kind of editor we don't want around here. Their deviousness in making incrementally small, and individually less innocuous changes to shape the narrative is especially problematic, and all the more reason for a longterm block. These changes are clearly calculated to effect the change in narrative they want, and instituted in such a way as to give them the exact sort of plausible deniability you, Levivich, are all too happy to grant them. They were not blocked for those two edits, but are instead blocked for the sum total of all of their work. Which is not what we want here. --Jayron32 14:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I was OK to let this drop, but... multi-year? Unless I'm missing something, the IP's contribs run from May 2018–March 2019, or 10 months. A multitude of small, incremental, minor changes? They have less than 25 mainspace edits in those 10 months, perhaps because they were blocked for 6 of them. The blocks in 2018 for edit warring were well-deserved. Since they came back, they haven't broken 3RR, they've spent more time on Talk pages discussing edits instead of edit warring (the exact thing that was asked of them), and they're not even terribly active as participants on those talk pages. Their edits to Ben Swann bring the prose closer to the cited New York Times source (differentiating between the conspiracy theories espoused on his TV show and those on his YouTube channel), and another editor has recently made very similar edits (which have also been reverted). So yeah, I have a hard time understanding the indef, which seems to be caused not by any POV-pushing or tendencious editing or edit warring, but for disagreeing on a talk page about a content dispute. I generally have a hard time understanding the concept that a series of accurate, policy-compliant edits, taken in total, can reveal a bad-faith editor, or that an editor who adjusts their behavior after being blocked should be blocked again anyway because we think they're EXACTLY the kind of editor we don't want around here. I guess I'm just a naive enabler. Leviv ich 22:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

So corrected. --Jayron32 13:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure Leviv and I have shared much agreement on anything, but on this, I find myself empathising. It seems on some topics one must stridently toe a certain line, for even any mild reformulation is liable to be perceived as minimization and result in harsh penalization. It is equivalent to a requirement that a "!" must be added in every mention of certain sins, and failing to add the "!", the editor is now minimizing that terrible, horrible thing that we all must denounce, to the point that if the "!" was left on the immediately precedent sentence, but not on the next sentence as well, the guilty editor has now become the kind of editor we don't want around here. XavierItzm (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Balakot_airstrike seems to be defaced with irrelevant content. Does not seem to be able to edit it to correct the issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagennos (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems to have corrected itself. The page now looks fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagennos (talk • contribs) 04:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Corrected itself is fine but how the heck did that happen in the first place? I don't see anything in the history that could explain the content being replaced by

Nude--regentspark (comment

) 05:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) indeed, I have the same Qs as regentspark, it would be good to know how/why so as to prevent it from happening again. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This piece of template vandalism. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I See Can someone NOTHERE block

Talk:2019 India–Pakistan standoff#The_article_is_showing_content_from_Nudity --DBigXrayᗙ

05:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked as an

WP:LTA by User:TonyBallioni. --DBigXrayᗙ

05:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User is constantly removing sourced info from List of Britpop musicians even though several different editors have reverted him here, here and here to name just a few. When it was brought up on the articles talk page, he provided more sources, one of which also described the band as Britpop. He has been asked and given final warnings repeatedly on his talk page but simply deletes the pleas and warnings. User has already been warned by Michig for edit warring and I don't want this to end up there so am avoiding reverting. Here you can see where I re-added the info with sources attached but user seems to have a preference for personal opinion as opposed to sources as can be ascertained from some of his edit summaries on that article's history alone. Robvanvee 16:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, this relates to User:Dean12065. They have received dozens of warnings over the last couple of months, including final warnings (all of which they have removed from their talk page). They were warned for edit warring on Suede (band) but continued to edit war on the same article after the warning ([16]). They don't seem to do anything other than make contentious edits and then edit war over them when they are reverted. --Michig (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I confirm that user Dean12065 has been constantly undoing my additions of several bands to the Britpop list, despite the fact every band I added came along with many reliable sources that made their presence in the list valid. They simply erased the bands, using personal opinions as 'arguments' and never, even once, coming up with a reliable source to justify their removal of the bands. This type of behaviour looks a lot like harassment. CouchJarvis (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen harassment with him, but a clear, unmoving, and unwavering bias towards his own opinion as fact is crystal-clear to us. He has clearly lost his arguments and continues to regurgitate the same stale argument and declaring any reason we have invalid. Clearly

oops

21:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Dean12065 is using edit summarries and this looks to me like content dispute. I have PP the page to encourage discussion. Dean12065 please respond here so we can sort this all out. DlohCierekim 01:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I have extended a personal invitation to discuss the matter here. DlohCierekim 01:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I now understand what I am doing is wrong. I have no idea what the difference is between opinion and fact, and I also had no idea that my arguments were weak and pointless. I plan to attempt to prevent myself from editing Wikipedia for a long time. I will make sure I won't go on an editing rampage ever again. Dean12065 (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

If you can't tell the difference between fact and opinion, you probably shouldn't be editing here or at least should take a good solid study on the topic, because that is critical to working here. As for things like arguing over images like those on

oops

02:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Some IPs primarily from Ireland have been consistently citing an obscure Irish writer named Eoghan Lyng, so much so that these cites are collectively trodding on the

Other disruptive behavior includes adding a false reference, a book that does not support the statement it supposedly backs. I looked through this book and it says nothing about these actors being considered.[17]

Should we block some IPs and the registered account, or set a filter? Examples and involved IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

My mistake there. Normally my references are strong, this one wasn't. I should have checked beforehand. -emnetinlurve

I see. You are saying that the actions of Special:Contributions/86.41.102.66 are your actions, Emnetinlurve. I didn't doubt it but that confirms it. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I admitted it. It was misguided, but it wasn't sabotage. Sinclair definitely mentioned Mel Gibson as a candidate, and that's what I referenced.-emnetinlurve

Considering that many of these pieces are an attempt to aid Wikipedia's pieces on Paul McCartney and James Bond, this seems somewhat unfair. They're journalistic pieces, they aren't some spammer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.108.125 (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not block this person, as there are interviews here that show credence to this person's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.108.125 (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that you are clearly

not here to expand the encyclopedia – instead you are here to make sure the name Eoghan Lyng appears as much as possible. That's why we are having this discussion. Binksternet (talk

) 01:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Another username was registered to respond to this situation: Emnetinlurve. I am notifying this new account as well. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Eoghan Lyng interviewed Graham Gouldman who corrected Wikipedia on facts about Wax, which I reported, interviewed Mike Bullen about his work on Cold Feet, got insight into the writing of Mull of Kintyre, brought useful information about Matthew Holness's Possum and is one of the few writers to have interviewed Richard Hewson about Thrillington. If you wish to downplay the name Eoghan Lyng, fine. Just don't take it out on the work. At least let the work get linked where it should be linked -Emnetinlurve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emnetinlurve (talk • contribs) 01:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not willing to "let the work get linked" when the works have been added systematically in a promotional manner, to increase the web presence of Eoghan Lyng. Any one of those references that you say should remain would be an insult to everybody else who does not come here to promote a writer. And the Lyng additions are usually trivial matters of how someone felt, appropriate for a magazine or book but not for an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Look, if interviews with Marianne Farley, Matthew Holness, Graham Gouldman, Eric Stewart, Denny Laine,Mike Bullen,Richard Hewson, Carl Davis Rick Buckler and Johnny Echols can be restored in the name of entertainment and encyclopedia, then the rest can be dealt with accordingly. Binksternet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emnetinlurve (talk • contribs) 01:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet's analysis. This appears to be a coordinated campaign. I first spotted these from edits by a couple of different IPs, then the ZanetaStepanova account was created specifically to revert my removals. I'd assumed those IPs were related to that account (which, as a new account, I didn't consider to be a socking issue). On the face of it, some of the additions seem to have some merit, and I actually wikified a few of the edits I initially encountered before I suspected there was an issue. Others seem entirely promotional, e.g. edits like these. Most of the edits I saw were citing We Are Cult or Taste of Cinema. When I asked ZanetaStepanova about COI, it was denied. I wasn't convinced, but as I had no proof, I let it go. I had no idea so many IPs and articles were involved. Nzd (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

AS you say, there is merit to some of them. So, could we focus on those? You are hurting a writer very deeply by removing his interview from the Possum page (which he didn't put there). If you wish to remove the Brendan Gleeson comments, go for it. -emnetinlurve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emnetinlurve (talk • contribs) 02:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I think Lyng's work is very authoritative on culture. His interview with Farley is on the nose, as is his brilliant interview with Martin Youth Glover---Jennifer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenniferjaques (talk • contribs) 03:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Latest is 86.41.107.246 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). Nzd (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that this IP just removed the above post, and also removed a post by @

Talk:Possum (2018 film). Nzd (talk)

10:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

This Tweet seems pertinent. Nzd (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

If the above tweet doesn't confirm Lyng's involvement, this one makes it more obvious. Binksternet, he got your name wrong. Booo!

Also, some odd goings on with 86.41.107.246 and ZanetaStepanova both submitting unblock requests today (both saying they were working on public networks, both of which were declined as not blocked). Nzd (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC) Courtesy pinging @SQL, reviewing admin for both requests. Nzd (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I have now been namechecked, so he is obviously monitoring this page. Note that this isn't the first accusation of bullying (see this edit from confirmed Emnetinlurve sock

Wikipedia rules to be anything remotely approaching bullying. Nzd (talk)

23:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I have responded to a subsequent tweet that was directed at me. That response details my recomendations for how to proceed should the user wish to contribute constructively and within the rules. The Emnetinlurve account has been blocked and has now had TPA revoked. The other sock/meat accounts are also blocked. Any further sock edits can be dealt with via the SPI page. @Binksternet: Did you want to progess a proposal for a filter, or do you think this is enough for now? Nzd (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's stand down for now on putting a filter in place. I'll keep an eye on things and report back if the problem returns. Binksternet (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Eoghan Lyng examples