Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1048

While I'm still looking into other Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution methods to deal with this, I feel it is necessary to record this incident here. Requesting assistance here, as the list of diffs is too big, and I do not know how to proceed.

Apparently, users Miaumee and JayBeeEll had an argument in User_talk:Miaumee#Basic_issues_of_punctuation, which eventually led to JayBeeEll reverting numerous edits by Miaumee, in an almost bot-like fashion.

At first glance, I'd say this is an infringement of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Most (if not all) of Miaumee's edits consist of:

1. adding multiple references of kind <ref name=':01'> , having Mathworld or Mathvault as source; and
2. making changes to the wording of the text.

In Variance diff, these changes in wording seemed quite positive to me, hence why I reverted the revert.

The multiple reversions can be checked in JayBeeEll's contributions, but I plan to collect of the disruptive edits here soon. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 22:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The list of all reverts are as follows:

FWIW, the edit summaries of "Undid revision by Miaumee (talk) Per User talk:Miaumee, this is apparently the preferred response to poor editing" makes it appear this is a

WP:POINT retaliation. Helper202 (talk

) 22:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No, my edits are not making a point: their edits are bad, reverting them is an improvement (at least on net). Also, I find it a bit annoying that this couldn't wait until after I responded on my talk-page (note that I have not performed any reverts in several hours, despite there being another 50-100 of these edits that are the last edit to their respective page). --JBL (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

All of these appear to be references to either Wolfram MathWorld or Mathvault. Is there any intrinsic problem with these sites as sources? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't think there is a problem, as I see them often here and there. Even if it were a "bad" source, I'm not sure if it would be OK to revert all edits, especially due to

WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs}

23:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mathworld is widely used but mediocre; Mathvault (and Brilliant.org, which they also seem to use) is super low quality, and the way they add them is very spammy. David Eppstein has also been reverting on sight (though I do not mean to suggest he endorses specifically the systematic reverts I've made). --JBL (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

True. For what it's worth, I believe the edits are in good faith, but low quality. More, they are too consistently low-quality and too extensive for it to be worth the effort to sift through them carefully in case any of the changes are improvements. Many of the changes are innocuous, neither better nor worse than what was there before, but many more are disimprovements, making the grammar worse, making the mathematics less accurate, or introducing low-quality web sources to articles that are already more carefully sourced to higher-quality publications. In any case the only issue here that is behavioral rather than content is Miaumee's continued pattern of edits beyond their level of competence. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no doubt that JayBeeEll's behavior of performing a mass revert with poor edit summaries qualifies as a behavioural issue regarding

WP:ESDOS, and it should be recorded as such. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs}

12:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The way Miaumee rephrases things (rather than adding useful content) can be seen as infringing

MOS:STYLERET; though in some of these diffs (I did not see all) I think the rephrasing actually improved the text. Is there any guideline that supports not using these poor sources (Mathworld and Mathvault)? Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs}

00:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that good faith but low-quality contributions cannot be undone merely as a matter of editorial discretion for being low-quality, and that instead they can only be undone if there is some policy or guideline that they violate. I strongly disagree. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Right. (Also the guideline as far as Mathvault is concerned is

WP:RS.) —JBL (talk

) 11:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

David Eppstein And let me guess, you get to make the decision as to what is low or high quality. It goes without saying that I'm against that.

A massive revert such as the one done is only justifiable if there is a clear infringement of a wikipedia guideline. As such, Miaumee's edits' quality are largely debatable, and JayBeeEll should have brought up the problem in, say, Wikiproject Mathematics.

You also miss my second point. I understand if it is hard for you, but try to place yourself in Miaumee's shoes for a moment. Hours of your work have been reverted, and with a quite unhelpful edit summary. This clearly goes the opposite way of

WP:ESDONTS). Ideally I want this to be solved in a way that is, at the very least, civil towards Miaumee. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs}

12:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I would be more concerned about Miaumee's feelings if they were responsive to concerns about their edits -- the actual best outcome here would be for them to say, "Yes I understand what is wrong with my edits, here is what I will do better; and by the way I will check over all my remaining edits to make sure they are okay." Their unwillingness to change in response to valid criticism is by far the most serious problem here. --JBL (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You can't get that kind of response from the other party if you just throw facts on their faces. First of all, what guarantee do they have that you are correct? Absolutely none. That's why you need consensus, supports from other people. I'm much more likely to recognize that I am wrong if more than some random editor calls out on me. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is an absurd elevation of process over substance, and it's particularly ridiculous given that you didn't bother to see what discussion with me would yield before running off to ANI. --JBL (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm most concerned with the civility problem. JayBeeEll applied the edit summary "Per User talk:Miaumee, this is apparently the preferred response to poor editing" to over 70 edits. It would be hard to argue that that's appropriate; it seems to me like WikiHounding. I noticed the uncivil edit summary in one of the pages on my watchlist and it led me to comment on their talk page, and I also considered starting an ANI thread before I saw this one. Benny White (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess it would help to make the following things explicit: I noted Benny White's concerns earlier and have not made any of thse edits since then. When I resume examining the rest of Miaumee's edits, if I revert them, I will endeavor to write edit summaries that don't rub people the wrong way. Likewise, I will proceed at a slower pace. --JBL (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

If there is no admin input to this, other than

1. explain to Miaumee, based on what was discussed here, that Mathvault and Mathworld can be seen as
   WP:RELIABILITY
   .
2. explain how her persistent and somewhat bot-like edits to rephrase text, while good faith, go against
   MOS:STYLERET when there isn't a clear improvement to the text. In some cases, such as here
   , there was a significant improvement to the text, but I guess that's because the original article had more significant problems in writing style. Most of Miaumee's other edits were modifications to an otherwise fine text, some of which arguably decreased the text quality.
3. invite her to undo JayBeeEll's reverts where she is sure the two above items do not apply.
4. invite her to selectively undo JayBeeEll's reverts, so that the content that does not infringe items 1 and 2 can remain live in the articles.
5. kindly request that she shifts her focus to adding actual new content to articles (properly sourced, of course).

Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 13:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

As the person who thought this was worth escalating to

WP:ANI you are the wrong person to claim to take a neutral role in this. And your suggestion that Miaumee be encouraged to reinstate some of the bad edits and continue making more of them is unconstructive and makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution. —David Eppstein (talk

) 16:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I was unsure if it was worth bringing the incident here, but now I am sure that's what should have been done. I'm glad to have this incident recorded here, but to some extent disappointed with the lack of feedback from neutral uninvolved admins.

I still believe I am a neutral party here, as I never had any relation with Miaumee and I noticed this whole problem merely because I'm watching Variance, and suddenly a revert with a weird edit summary popped up in my watch list. To make it worse, it reverted a largely fine edit (thought I intend to remove the mathworld references soon).

Might I add, I am now reminded that an RfA has just been denied on the grounds that the candidate had bad dispute resolution skills (withdrawn at 17 September), so the dispute resolution skills I am witnessing here is having its toll on me. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

As an attempt to improve the item you mentioned, I have striked it and added a reformulated one. By no means I would proposed she fully revert edits, as all of them involve mathworld etc references, and I'd rather have her keep these away. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Walwal20, Miaumee, David Eppstein, and JayBeeEll: Walwal20 reached out to me, as an uninvolved admin, which I am. Indeed I don't think I have ever edited any of these articles, or interacted with any of you except David Eppstein, who I have had slioght but quite positive interactions with. Several points:

1. I accept for the moment, the statement that Mathvault and Mathworld are generally low-quality sources.
2. An editor who believes that a given edit is unhelpful may surely revert that edit as a matter of editorial judgement. No one's approval is needed for that, although if the revert is challenged
   WP:BRD
   applies.
3. However to mass-revert over 75 edits at a rate approaching 5 edits per minute approaches the level of bot-like editing covered by
   WP:MEATBOT
   . This is not acceptable in the absence of consensus. I accept that all these reverts were done in good faith.
4. As per
   pointy
   whether it was intended as a POINTY action or not.
5. I therefore ask JayBeeEll to refrain from any further such edits until there is time for a discussion of the matter. Please consider this a sufficient challenge to these edits to invoke BRD.
6. I have as yet no substantive opinion on the merits of these edits. I will try to form one. There are both content issues and behavioral issues here.
7. I will address :::Miaumeedirectly on that user's talk page, and ask for a Stop to the edits now being reverted.

I ask for calm and civility from all involved. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It goes to show the absurdity of this situation that I committed to the things you ask of me six hours ago. --JBL (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have now made This edit to User talk:Miaumee DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

JayBeeEll I am attempting to respond quickly to prevent further problems here. I have not yet had time to read everything written about this situation. I apologize if I have overlooked comments of yours, and i am thankful that you have already agreed to my requests, which I hope are reasonable ones, and which were in part addressed to all. Could you give me a pointer to the agreement you mention, please? or at least was it in this thread or elsewhere? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I am going offline for a few hours, but will check back when I can, all. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Sorry, I didn't mean to snipe at you specifically, I just find it ridiculous that this was brought to ANI in the first place, without waiting for a response on my talk-page. The comment I mean is the one is response to Benny White above -- although rereading it I guess it promises slightly less (or at least is vague about when I might resume looking at Miaumee's edits). So let me take the opportunity to observe that there is nothing urgent about any of this; to further make clear that I will not resume before this is resolved; and to restate my earlier committment to not doing the things that people object to (the speed and edit summaries) if I do resume after this is resolved. Finally, I appreciate your comment on Miaumee's talkpage, thanks. --JBL (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Quite all right, JayBeeEll, no offense taken. I see the comment you refer to, and i thank you for that and for your later response just above. I am now hoping for a response to this from Miaumee. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi folks. Thanks for chiming in. I guess I'll start by saying that my edits are not exactly as systematic as some here have presumed. Often times, the editing barely happens because I find a sentence jarring or hard to understand, and the rest proceeds organically from there. The intent is often not to introduce new content, but to put myself as a first-time reader and see which passage appear nebulous (as is common in mathematical text) and how they can be rephrased. The edits weren't done with the intent of reverting style, although for someone with a certain grammatical style whose edits are often substantive, it could appear that way.

The other thing I thought I would mention is that during the course of editing, I've come to learn certain grammatical changes (outside of MoS) are touchier than others. In the beginning for example, I used to reflexively remove duplicate spaces after full stop as I read through the text. But after being notified that some prefer double spaces, I became more aware to adjust my writing to fit the predominant style of the article.

So this, among other reasons, is why I never revert any edit on Wikipedia (there are others more capable in making those sorts of judgments than me). The history of me being on Wiki has been me doing the editing, and others doing the reverting (if they so feel compelled). To be frank, the reverting basically didn't happen until fairly recently, but that's also why there hasn't been any edit war involving me in the first place—since I almost never edit an article twice.

So the point here is that I'm not the type who would seek to reinstate any reverting. I think that if the edit is good, then it'll find its way there somehow, and if it's bad, someone will either change things up or revert it altogether. That's basically why I have been confident with editing—knowing that I cannot possibly satisfy everyone in the process.

OK. Back to the concerns about grammar. To be honest, I didn't think that it would be such an issue since the MoS covered many aspects rather thoroughly. From my exchange with JBL, I've learned that he takes issue at least with my use of stray commas and em-dash. While the uses of these are rather common on Wikipedia, they have the potential of changing the meaning of the sentences. So that's definitely something I think twice before doing.

Apart from those, I really haven't got much clue whether the issue with grammar are indeed grammatical errors in the Wikipedia sense, since—as you might know—I haven't been able to get much info from the reverts aside from "grammatical disprovement". It'd have been nicer if the edits were modified instead of being reverted—but I guess that's hard to do due to the substantive nature of the edits.

As for the citations, that's something I have a mixed feeling about. As you might know, I have a few handy online sources I use for reading on a topic and doing the editing. If I slap a citation on an article, it's generally not because I'm crazy about them, but because they happen to be just around and ok for the sentences being substantiated. While I agree that these different sources (mathworld, mathvault, mathsisfun, brilliant, math insight) are of different levels of quality, I think that in many cases, the dubiousness can be a bit overblown and some of the expectations can be a bit unrealistic (for mathematics at least).

Hmm... how should I put this. I think I'll start by saying that it is generally not easy to find a citation in mathematics (though it sure is easy for those doing the policing). The point is that I've chosen those sites precisely because they are reference-based and non-self-published (at least in the appearance of it). Even if they were to be self-published, these are generally written or reviewed by competent individual (including mathsisfun, which admittedly looks very inappropriate for citing). I guess what I'm saying is that out of millions of questionable math sites, those are the ones that tend to stand out and happen to be around during the research (and are less likely to disappear like some academic PDF would).

For example, I also have some reservation about citing Brilliant.org, which is technically a wiki. But unlike open-for-all wiki, they have a curation process so that only certain individuals can edit (almost as a sort of peer-reviewing). If this were about biography of living person I'll definitely think twice, but if one considers those sites as low quality, then considering their factual accuracy and the amount of math resources they offer—it'd be like playing a game with your hands tied (unless one turns to textual sources, which I assume is possible but much less handy). My inclination is that them doing harm on the site is a bit of an over-stretch, but of course that doesn't mean that anything goes either.

Anyway, I am not saying this out of defiance, nor I am trying to discredit your points—as I'm sure I can do better on many fronts. Basically, this is yet another reason why I'm sort of prepared to have my previous edits reverted (if it were to come out that way). As I mentioned on my talk page, I'll refrain from any editing until the dust is settled. Though I really, really do appreciate the admins and fellow editors for standing out, I'd probably stay relatively low-profile to avoid clouding the judgment. Miaumee (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Miaumee, I am glad to read your comment above. I hope we are wewll on the way to resolving this.

It seems to me that three are two parts to this, content issues and behavioral issues.

The content issues are the quality of edits by Miaumee, and how they can be improved, and whether reverts are needed going forward. That is really out of scope for ANI, but perhaps needs further discussion somewhere. It could be done on User talk:Miaumee or on a separate page, perhaps a new page such as Wikipedia:Math edits by Miaumee (or I could create such a page in my user space if people prefer).

The behavioral issues are fairly simple, and I hope will not need further discussions or any restrictions on anyone. On Miaumee's part, there must be a serious effort to make the best possible edits, and to work collaboratively. An attitude that if there is a problem with an edit, someone else will revert it or correct it is not optimal, it can seem as if that means expecting others to clean up after poor edits. Also attention to Wikipedia:Communication is required. And in this particular case, Miaumee should review their own past edits and revise them to remove problems where possible.

On the part of

WP:MEATBOT

says that Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. and warns of the dangers of highly repetitive editing. I gather that JBL has agreed not to use such methods of reverting in future.

With JBL's agreement above, and with Miaumee's stated intent to do better (I'm sure I can do better on many fronts.) It seems that the behavioral issues have perhaps been addressed. Does anyone think that further discussion of these or of any other behavioral issues is needed here? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:QUO, is forcing me to be more blunt. In fact, I have looked carefully through each of the several edits of Miaumee that I undid, contrary to your accusations. I found in them only the introduction of low-quality web sources, minor wording changes that added verbiage but no value to the article, bizarre choices of punctuation (especially frequent introduction of unspaced dashes in places where dashes of any sort were not appropriate, creating the appearance of compound words in technical articles where that could plausibly indicate some unknown technical meaning but in fact merely consisted of poor writing), gratuitous changes of citation style, and the occasional introduction of mathematical inaccuracies. There was never any attempt to introduce worthwhile content to the articles that could be salvaged with better editing; it was all cosmetic and all disimprovement. I did not want to say that there is nothing of value to salvage in Miaumee's edits, because I do still believe Miaumee is acting in good faith, but when you use my politeness as an excuse to attack me I must respond honestly. —David Eppstein (talk

) 18:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not intend to attack you, David Eppstein. If you reviewed an edit, or many edits, by Miaumee, and concluded that each was of no value to the article, reverting them was perfectly proper. I note in this revert (which seems to be your latest revert of Miaumee) for example, a helpful specific edit summary. This is in contrast to the repetitive reverts by JayBeeEll. My objection was the the implication which seemed to me to be present in your comments that, having reviewed a number of edits by Miaumee you found them of such consistently low value that it was justified to revert al of them without further examination or "at sight" as JBL described them. If I understand you correctly, that was a misdescription, and all your reverts were after examination. If so I have no problem with them. I apologize if I mischaractreized your commetns above. Can you see where they seemed to me, in conenction with the comments by JBL, to be endorsing a "revert-on-sight" approach? Do I take it you agree that even after finding many problems with an editor's contributions, individual reverts require individual, albeit perhaps brief, examination of the edit to be reverted? If so, they we agree. I was, i admit, more focused on JBL's reverts, and on you only in terms of your comments here that seemed to endorse them, or endorse a revert on sight approach. I apologize for not making this clearer. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

When an editor makes dozens or hundreds of edits, all of the same type, how many of them do you have to examine carefully word by word, recognizing that they're all of the same type and providing careful individually-written edit summaries describing for each of them what their faults are, before determining that additional edits that look at a cursory glance to be of the same type can be treated the same way with a canned edit summary? You seem to believe: there is no limit, that cursory undoes with canned summaries are never appropriate, and that productive editors must be forced to either waste their time taking great care over each undo or let the articles they watchlist slowly rot by ignoring these disimproving edits. That is not reasonable. I would like to encourage new editors, especially in mathematics and especially if (as several others here have implied) Miaumee is female, because we need more editors of both types. But allowing new editors to persist in bad habits, rather than redirecting them towards a type of edit that can be more constructive, and forcing other editors to waste time indulging them, is not encouragement, and I would add that it is also not encouraging those other editors to direct their time and energy towards what should be the primary task here, building and maintaining an encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I would say that every revert needs to be individually considered, not conducted en-mass with a canned edit summery, unless a clear consensus to revert all of an editor's contributions has been developed with multiple experienced editors contributing to the discussant, just as is done in a

WP:CCI. And I think that is what current policy and guidelines call for. I would say further that such a process is not warranted unless the editor involved has been blocked or Tbanned by community consensus, or at least such a measure has been seriously debated at a noticeboard. There are other ways to redirect new editors with bad habits than mass reverts. Targeted reverts with helpful comments seem more likely to do the job if it is doable in a particular case, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

19:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• "why I never revert any edit on Wikipedia" You never check for insertion of vandalism, unsourced content, and POV edits? How does that work?
• "I almost never edit an article twice." Do you add the articles you edit to your watchlist? This allows you to check newer changes.
• "I think that in many cases, the dubiousness can be a bit overblown and some of the expectations can be a bit unrealistic (for mathematics at least)." Then you should discuss the reliability of the sources with other editors. Dimadick (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I've spent more time gathering your feedbacks from different pages. As mentioned earlier, I don't plan to reinstate any of my previous edits. If people feel that further revert is needed out of good faith, I won't object. And if people decide to reinstate some of the edits, it's ok too—I just don't think I'm experienced enough on Wiki to make the call.

When I think about it, it seems that we're all here because the communication broke down somehow with us holding onto our belief. I think the first line of attack is still the edit summary, which I think I haven't done a good job at monitoring. My watchlist grew very large very quickly, so I changed to monitoring using the contribution page instead, but somehow that habit slipped off, and by the time I received messages on the talk page, it's usually too late. I think I can do better on that front.

As for the citations, I think it boils down to me and JBL and David Eppstein having different threshold of acceptabilitiy (me being not a research scientist, hence a more liberal approach to it). At this point, they are the only ones who have reverted my edits on that basis, so I'm not sure how their viewpoint reflects that of the general wiki math community. While I think that whether the sources are questionable as per WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:RSSELF is debatable (not that I'm defending these sites, but these are not small sites, after all), I do think that they can definitely improved if I were to choose more scholarly sources. With that, the issue should be settled.

On the grammar front. I'm aware during the editing process, some mindless errors might slip in. I think the easiest thing I can do is to revise the edits once before submitting, and another time after submitting.

Other than that, I still have the feeling that the disagreement is more on style than anything. For example. both JBL and David Eppstein have objected to the use of em-dash as bizarre, citing that it could be confused with a compound word (even though a hyphen would be used in that case). I can see how it can be confused with a math operator if an em-dash were to occur after symbols, but then that's where the lack of spacing around em-dash is useful. It's true that some of my changes alter the meaning of the sentences, so I try to be more mindful on that front. In any case, I think that a good course of action for me is to go back to MoS again, read through a bulk of sample featured articles on math thoroughly. This should provide me with some clues as to how to proceed with editing. Miaumee (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This [3] is clear legal threat. The editor claims to be the the director of communications of

• I've made it clear that if their next action is anything but withdrawing that threat, they will be blocked. I will grant that they might respond to a message directed to them on Meters's talk page before they see my final warning, however. Still, at this point, if their response to that message is to double down on the legal threats, I'm going to block even if they hadn't yet seen my final warning. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Aaaand blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me that people think (even aside from

WP:NLT) that this is a reasonable or effective threat. Sheesh. Dumuzid (talk

) 01:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

My lawyers says that

no matter how fun I think it'd be, it'd be a bad idea to start all of my responses to such people with "my lawyer says." Ian.thomson (talk

) 02:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You always could do what Trey Parker and Matt Stone did. They instructed their lawyer to publish the following official statement: [5] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Your edit summary.."Don't Taze me, bro." LOL. Thanks! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

3 editors are reverting the page to an unreferenced revision. When told the edit is unreferenced the users simply stop responding but nevertheless have been reverting the page for over 2 days. Attempting to get me, as the sole user reverting back to the referenced version to trigger 3RR, get blocked and hopefully game the system at the article. Please put an to this which has been going on for 2 days. GoldyMcDonald (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Diffs: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] GoldyMcDonald (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gala19000 Shadow4dark (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a duck, user GoldycDonald behaviour is fishy enought to be linked to proven sockpuppets Gala19000. See the latest Sockpuppet investigation.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked the user after they have moved to Karabakh articles. They were so kind to call me a "fucking tard"--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:PBAGDSWCBY GirthSummit _(blether)

18:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

On another site, us sysops wished that we could impose a rule that problem users should be compelled to have serialised usernames: User:Spammer01, User:Spammer02, User:Troll01, User:Troll02, and so on. We never did manage to convince anyone in authority. Narky Blert (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm astonished that three of those accounts are uncreated redlinks; i'm tempted to claim one of them in honour of one of the best fairy tales; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 08:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It would appear that alas, the

(Non-administrator comment) @TheLionHasSeen: I've requested semiprotection and added the sockpuppet reports since there's been more since you wrote this, but a few things:

• First, as the editnotice on this page states, you must notify the user on their talk page when creating a thread here about them.
• Second, requests for page protection should go on
  WP:RPP
  - there's a good chance you'll get a faster response there.
• You can also report the IP to the relevant sockpuppet investigation if you see it in the future.
• One last thing is just a point of clarification,
  three-strikes policy as CheckUsers
  have confirmed that they've circumvented the block more than two times.

Wikipedia policy and guidelines can be pretty confusing, so I just wanted to clarify a few things with you. I've been here off-and-on for a decade and there's still plenty I don't know. Keep up the good work! – Frood (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, Frood. HistoryEtCulture is permanently blocked for the following, and may be found in the archives of the noticeboard as evidenced here and here; this is just providing some additional evidence for evidence's sake. Next, thank you for the reminder, as I was in the midst of multitasking and forgot to notify the IP they highly seem to have performed these contributions through. That, is occurring right now as I type this expanded response and forgo my initial response. I appreciate the assistance, greatly so!! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a random question, but would't it be possible for the Wikimedia Foundation to contact the VPN companies utilized and request their information for constant disruptive activities? Also, with harassment seeming to extend to outside of Wikipedia from the cases opened against them, that the Wikimedia Foundation confidently contacts those harassed or cyberstalked giving them the option to perform a cease and desist? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

In theory, yes. There used to be

WP:Abuse Response but that was shut down because it was pretty inactive. There have been cases when the WMF has gotten involved such as with Grawp but I imagine they only do that in extreme cases. Unfortunately this is pretty run-of-the-mill socking. – Frood (talk

) 19:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Like @Frood says, Hoaeter/Habesha Union is technically banned, anyway. It is difficult (for me) to imagine any circumstances in which Hoaeter, et al could successfully appeal any of the various accounts' blocks -- see Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoaeter#June 2020 as to why. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• IP blocked, article protected. The blocked editor (Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hoaeter) is editing from the same location as previously (a US education facility). Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Rémy Ryan Robert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to draw the attention of the administrators to a user named Rémy Ryan Robert and his activity related to the article "Summer hit". Almost every week, for a couple of years now, he has been trying to prominently mention Jessica Simpson and/or Geri Halliwell there. Moreover, his additions are either unsourced or inadequately sourced. He has been warned several times already. I even gave him two level-4 warnings, but he doesn't stop.

Actually, some edits are made anonymously from the IP address

What Rémy Ryan Robert does is he adds some photo with more or less the same description in poor English:

• [12]: "Since 1999, Mi Chico Latino by Geri Halliwell, is one of the best summer hit in several countries."
  (The sourcing is inadequate. Officialcharts.com simply says the song spent 1 week at number 1 at the very end of August 1999. And it is highly unlikely that a reference book titled British Hit Singles & Albums can possibly be a source for all of this.)
• [13]: "Since 2004, Ride It" by Geri Halliwell is one of the best summer song in serevals countries."
• [14]: "Since 2004, Take My Breath Away by Jessica Simpson is one of the best summer hit in severals countries."

He also seems to like a song titled "If I Don't Have You" by Tamar Braxton, he has added it to the list of examples:

• [15]: "2020: "
  If I Don't Have You" by Tamar Braxton
  "
  (The sources don't seem to exist.)

• [16]: "2006: “Promiscuous” by Nelly Furtado"
  (The reference is a link to the Billboard Hot Dance Club Play chart for the week ending on October 7, 2006. It just lists the song at number 40, that's all.)

--Moscow Connection (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Obviously unconstructive editing, trying to evade scrutiny... that's an easy call, blocking now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Farhanakbar1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite repeated warnings as well as a personal plea on their talk page requesting them to stop adding unsourced information accompanied by a {{cn}} tag, this user continues and makes zero attempt at discussing this concern. Frankly, this just comes across as lazy to me and it seems they couldn't be bothered to learn how to add citations or perhaps there is some concerning level of incompetence that may need addressing. Please could an admin take a look. Robvanvee 20:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

There ain't no incompetence there! It's deliberate. A lot of effort to add a tag to every fact for someone who is apparently lazy. I think they do know how to add references, but there is not any/reliable sources for what they are adding and therefore are adding it to stop what I would call a drive by revert. Games of the world (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, pure laziness.

talk

) 21:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me. This is indeed disruptive, so I've issued a partial block from mainspace until and unless they can convince us that this behavior will stop. They can propose edits on talk pages, and if they show that they can make properly sourced edit requests, I've got no objection to another admin removing the block. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Jerm, that comment wasn't directed at you - it was a reaction to the user intentionally adding unsourced information with a CN tag. GeneralNotability (talk)`—Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for the feedback and a special thanks to GeneralNotability for tending to the problem. Robvanvee 06:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Despite having had

• 'Regarding the inclusion of "United States" in the infobox, there have been many discussions over the years because Puerto Rico is not in the U.S. but is a territory of the U.S. "United States" thus shouldn't be included in addresses.'
• 'Puerto Rico in many respects behaves as a country and is a country, ....'
• 'In most cases, there is no need to obfuscate the reader with the political relationship of the United States and Puerto Rico. In addition, information in the infobox "summarizes key features of the page's subject";[3] thus, if the subject of the article is the municipality, the infobox should not have facts that allude to the political relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico.'

This user continues to use the formulation "Puerto Rico, United States" or something similar[17][18][19][20][21][22] and to add the United States as an infobox subdivision level (or removing Puerto Rico as the country or replacing it with the United States)[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] in article after article. The user was already engaged in these edits as an IP user before creating the Anonymous MK2006 account on 17 September,[31][32][33][34][35] some of them addressed by me at User talk:84.66.6.5 on 16 September.

User:The Eloquent Peasant has also been heavily engaged in communication with this user.

Does this user's editing warrant a block? Largoplazo (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I checked that the user has been warned sufficiently, indeed others tried to explain what they were doing wrong, but they still continued to add the US to the Puerto Rico infoboxes. I therefore blocked them for 31h and will try to roll back their edits now.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Well,

WikiProject advice page, not a guideline. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 15:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Not a guideline but it indicates that the matter has been discussed at length, that there is an existing and heavily elaborated consensus among a group of editors that has discussed the matter, even if it doesn't rise to the level of

WP:BRD. Largoplazo (talk

) 15:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I should add that I wasn't just applying

WP:PRUS without contributing my own view to the building consensus, but contributing my own support for what I found that it provides. I found it after seeing the user's edits, disagreeing with them, and looking to see whether the topic had been covered on Wikipedia before. Largoplazo (talk

) 15:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not editing against consensus unless there's an RFC or a guideline or policy page. Consensus among WikiProject participants is not binding on the community. Lev!vich 16:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

If a user repeatedly gets warned by other users that their edits are not appropriate, tries to discuss, gets their arguments rejected, and, instead of discussing further or opening an RfC or even a talk page discussion just stops replying and goes on making the same edits - well, this is disruptive editing--Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, it's a type of edit warring, even if it's not all on the same article. Lev!vich 16:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

As a follow-up, the user posted an unblock request which convinced me that they can be unblocked at the moment. They promised to start dioscussing before making further edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

For a while now, the IP

User still going at it, now with vandalism too. Eik Corell (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I second this report. I found them yesterday and have been reverting on sight, with verifying first that there wasn't any valid edits just to be sure. More of the issue I've seen with this IP has been the unnecessary changes of various wikilinks with changes revolving around the concept that the

Examples: [television program|TV broadcasts] to [tv shows] and [video game]s to [video games] seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Content_rating&type=revision&diff=980269146&oldid=969901178 [mashed potato]es to [mashed potatoes] and [Swedish meatball]]s to [Swedish meatballs] here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swedish_cuisine&type=revision&diff=980166827&oldid=980134983 The list goes on and on. Zinnober9 (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

There are IP addresses and User:Marco Carrasco (alumnus of Paris 1 according to old version of his page) who are putting old positive rankings of this university. Last one: [36] Others are listed there: [37] (removed "no longer..."). --Delfield (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I also notice that this was not closed and that the user continues with its behavior in talk pages. --Delfield (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello,
Meaning Translated has moved the article out of the draft space even though Curb Safe Charmer declined the review twice. Shouldn't this article stay in the draft space? Moumou82 (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

CSD (if it meets the criteria) or at AfD if you think the subject isn't notable. GirthSummit _(blether)

18:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Omg55557w77w7 is removing Moscow and St. Petersburg from the List of tallest buildings in Europe saying that these cities are not in Europe [38][39][40]. Seems to be vandalism. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Also he added the "counterpropaganda message" [41] to the article.--Александр Мотин (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like someone has an

talk

) 21:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

But it's definitely disruptive.

talk

) 21:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for 36h (in particular, for this) and reverted, but this is most likely a sock, I just can not guess of what master.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:SOCK. Uses the same wording style, writes words with uppercase. – user:81.132.29.226 [42]--Александр Мотин (talk

) 21:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

For a long time, the IP user (IP variables) 2001:fb1:70:9069:29dd:7e84:bb3c:1a40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing the Marek Reichman ([48]) article, removing sources and information. Repeated many times, but it doesn't help. It gives no arguments or sources, all the time removing only source information. It is likely that it is a Theregan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user who, in a similar vein, also destroys the article and removes the warnings from his discussion page. LechitaPL (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Have you discussed or attempted to discuss on talk pages before coming here? Wm335td (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and this was the response.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Also at the article talk page--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the diffs. That seems problematic. Wm335td (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The user (and the IP) continued to edit-war by removing sourced content, and they apparently have chosen not to respond here. I have fully protected the page for three days, and I am inclined to block, but will be happy to have more opinions.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The one who has been vandalising this article Marek Reichman for long is the user LechitaPL not me if you look at edit history, and he even accusing me and others with no reasons He wants the article to go his way and views without letting anyone to change it, His claim been proved as irrelevant and fake information, the User LechitaPL has been blocked so many times from vandalising and stubborn behaviour and couldn’t even come discuss in the talk page He can’t just ask the administrator to lock the article for no reason without discussing in the talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theregan (talk • contribs) 08:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that LechitaPL has never been blocked for vandalism, or for any reason whatsoever. MrAureliusR_Talk! 08:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Micah Street has submitted Draft:Micah Street to WikiProject Articles for Creation. However, they are believed to be engaged in undisclosed paid editing since the article is heavily biased and at the end of the page, they stated (in revision 973670953) that "Please consider this wikipedia page, I have added a multitude of sources to support the biography I have written for the artist that I manage "Micah Street". We have secured a multitude of industry deals and need his page up ASAP. I thank you for your understanding." This significantly proves that the editor in question is engaged in paid editing, but they have not disclosed such through:

• a statement on your user page (as of revision 971048430),
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (no talk page found on the draft in question), or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions (as of revision 973670953);

in accordance to policy of the Wikimedia Foundation and English Wikipedia as stated in

You appear to have only notified them - the first such notification by any editor - of our policy on paid editing less than half an hour before raising the matter here (if you have previously done so, please provide a diff). They have not edited since then nor indeed or the last week. Please await their response before coming back here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

If this was reported at

WP:AIV

, it would go nowhere. We don't block people who haven't edited recently. It's been 5 weeks since any activity by this editor. You can hardly say they didn't disclose their COI, as their last edit on August 18 said this:

"Please consider this wikipedia page, I have added a multitude of sources to support the biography I have written for the artist that I manage Micah Street. We have secured a multitude of industry deals and need his page up ASAP. I thank you for your understanding."

And that was before you notified them. I find no violation here. — Maile (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• WikiAviator, The user's COI was disclosed on 18 August 2020. The editor in question has not edited since that date. If you want them to declare their COI in a specific place, please leave them a precisely detailed note on their talk page, and give them the policy link, and tell them exactly what to do. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• Maile66, there's also the username problem -- they seem to be in violation of username policy. Can you deal with that issue? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

  Softlavender, the user is already soft blocked for violating the username policy. See [49], [50]. Best, — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)