Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive808

PrivateMasterHD keeps adding baseball terminology to football articles (and has added generally incorrect information and used questionable word choices in several articles) and has been unresponsive to messages left on their talk page except to blank the page. There have been documented concerns about them for past behavioral issues and while PrivateMaster has demonstrated the ability to make constructive edits, edits such as this continue.

I became aware of their activities on June 17 at Nick Folk when they made this edit that I reverted. Nearly a month later, they returned to the article to make two consecutive edits. There was a third edit made by an IP account (69.122.190.4) that I believe them to be using as the edit was a minute apart from the other edits. The IP claimed Folk was "designated for assignment" however, this does not exist in the National Football League (NFL) only in Major League Baseball (MLB). I left a note on the IP's talkpage however, I did not realize that Yankees10 had warned PrivateMaster a month earlier for a similar incident which aroused my suspicions. As it turned out, both accounts heavily edited MLB and NFL articles so I decided to do some research and found some trends.

Via PrivateMaster's account: Jason Babin ("designated for assignment"), Boomer Esiason (In this instance, the majority of the edit is fine but the

A look at the edit history of the IP account reveals a similar batch of edits: Darius Slay ("disabled list"), Shawn Nelson ("designated for assignment"), Colin Baxter ("disabled list; designated for assignment"), Albert Haynesworth ("designated for assignment"), Dennis Pitta ("disabled list"). Most concerning is an edit made back in May to the Injured reserve list which stated MLB players were placed on an injured reserve list if they were lost for the year. This is not true because the MLB utilizes the disabled list (for example Johan Santana was declared out for the year after undergoing shoulder surgery prior to the start of the baseball season—he was placed on the 60 disabled list).

For what it's worth, in addition to the consecutive edits made by PrivateMaster and 69.122.190.4 at Nick Folk, this occurred again on July 27 at Andre Gurode with the IP incorrectly stating Gurode had been ""designated for assignment" while PrivateMaster added dates in the section titles which has been a trend in the edits of both accounts (see here and here).

Being that they frequently edit MLB and NFL articles, I could see, earlier on, if it was a mix-up however, we're to the point where multiple messages have been left for both accounts and yet they are still blatantly substituting the incorrect terminology. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 17:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Indef block until he decides to communicate with other editors. I don't see where he's communicating at all with any editor. Blanking and continuing the same behavior is not acceptable.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • He actually has communicated with other editors - but only about protection templates, it appears, and nothing about this behavior, so I'd support an indef based on
    WP:IDHT if it continues. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
    17:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    • They blanked the ANI notice and have continued about editing. I'm beginning to sincerely doubt that they're open to discussion on this matter. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 18:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block: Very disruptive editing, no communication with other editors about the problems they notify him about, and a clear lack of
  competence. Thomas.W ^{talk to me}
  13:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the "update 8/12", the fact he immedately removed that indicates something, but I'm not sure what. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nor do I. It's still problematic that they continue to remain silent however. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 16:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• What's the issue with that particular edit? All I see is a removal of unreferenced information from a BLP. That said, the user is clearly being disruptive elsewhere, so I support the indef. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the protection templates - now that it has been established that there's a pattern of disruptive editing - it may be worth noting that he may be changing the tags to intentionally confuse the bots that auto-remove them. Also, he added a protection template outside noinclude tags on AIV [1] (which is transcluded on some admin's personal toolbox pages) after I had already corrected a similar mistake by him 3 days ago [2]. Now this is not an indication of bad faith behavior by itself, because even some admins make this mistake sometimes, but he continues to do it as if to intentionally make several unrelated pages appear in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. That one edit to Template:Image information art actually listed more than a hundred pages there, and the problem was not easy to fix because of the many transclusions those pages have, making it difficult to pinpoint the template that's causing the problem. Ginsuloft (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that, this seems to be edging into either
    failure to communicate, has led to my applying an indef block until these issues are addressed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
    18:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Continues the talk page blanking even after being blocked. He hid The Bushranger's comment as if to make it look like no admin has looked into his unblock request yet. Note that this is not allowed per
  WP:BLANKING. Ginsuloft (talk
  ) 13:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Laval outing

Hang on a minute, here. Laval just outed an editor on WP:COIN. I know outing happens fairly regularly there, but they also throw in accusations that both the editor and the subject of the article are Scientologists. This comes after Laval failed to get the article deleted in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christy Lee Rogers}an AfD]]. It seems petty, at the very least. ArbCom just banned an acknowledged Scientologist for allegedly outing someone. I'm not a fan of either side of this dispute, but I got sick of the hypocrisy around this issue long ago. Laval needs to learn that the rules are the same for all sides. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just revdeleted and warned Laval, but if anyone thinks blocking is merited or Scientology sanctions are needed please weigh in. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Laval has already been warned per

WP:ARBSCI but has continued to pursue a battleground agenda. Calling people Scientologists and outing an editor after being warned is call for an indef block. Delicious carbuncle (talk

) 14:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here. It appears that Laval has alleged at

WP:AE request.  Sandstein 

17:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

At Hokkaido (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Nanshu (talk · contribs) has been vehemently opposing the inclusion of what is as far as I can discern from multiple sources I've scoured across the internet to be the Ainu language name for the island and has done so for the past several years. Last year, when Nanshu came upon the page, he falsely accused me of vandalism and he posted this lengthy screed wherein he calls me "not just rude and dishonest but ignorant". I sought out several more sources to back up the claim I had added as seen here. Within the past several hours Nanshu has once again posted a lengthy essay to the talk page where among many things he says I lack common sense, continues to attack my intelligence by stating that something is too long for me to understand, and says that I am an example of the anti-intellectual threat to Wikipedia. He has also called me a hopeless cause and said I am "too bold to edit Wikipedia"??. I should not have to tolerate this behavior.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I warned the user on their talk page. The level of incivility in this case is relatively minor, I don't believe any other action is warranted at this time. If the incivility continues, report it again to escalate the consequences. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 16:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Incivility going on for 3 years now though is a bit much.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• For his figure of how many Spanish speakers there are in the US, Migang2g uses one source that gives the total Hispanic population in the US, then another source that says which percentage of Hispanics speak Spanish, and then he calculates his own figure based on this. There are loads of problems there. First, some non-Hispanics also study Spanish. Jeb Bush is not Hispanic, but speaks Spanish. Second, the figure Migang2g presents is not found in any of the sources, it's his own calculation by combining data from two different sources that weren't necessarily computed at the same time.
  
• For Spanish speakers in Morocco, it gets even more bizarre. The source says between 4 and 7 millions, but Migang2g has decided that the actual number is 5.5 millions.
  
• For all European countries, Migang2g uses the Eurobarometer. First of all, the Eurobarometer only focuses on people older than 15 years, so applying it to the whole population is clearly wrong. Second, the Eurobarometer study consists of a sample in every European country, usually between 500 and 1000 people, and the gives a percentage for how many of these speaks a given language. So the Eurobarometer never gives any figure for the number of speakers in any country. Yet for more than 20 countries, Migang2g takes the percentage found in the sample, then calculates that against the number of people older than 15 years, and then presents his results as the number of Spanish speakers in the whole population.
  
• For many non-European countries, Migang2g looks at how many people there are in the country from Spanish speaking countries, and then he adds all these up. This is wrong on many levels. First and foremost, it again means that the number Migang2g presents is never found in the sources, it's just his own calculations. Second, the calculations are obviously wrong. For some countries, he only finds data for some Spanish speaking countries. Moreover, he is wrong to equate "people from Spanish speaking countries" with "Spanish speakers". In Spain alone, there are millions of people whose language is Catalan, Galician or Basque rather than Spanish.
  
• For a large number of countries, Migang2g doesn't even bother with a source. He just presents a number with no source at all. If it's removed, he reinserts it. If it's tagged, he deletes the tags.
  
• Last but not least, Migang2g presents a percentage of Spanish speakers for the whole population. There is never a source for this. Instead he takes the whole population of each country from some source. Then he divides that with his own estimates of Spanish speakers (which are always OR, as shown above) to arrive at the percentage. Even if his calculations of Spanish speakers wouldn't violate OR, and they certainly do, this percentage nonsense would be obvious OR and false as the sources Migang2g has used are never taken at the same time.
  

Now, I have tried to explain over and over to Migang2g that this is OR.[16], [17], [18]. I have pointed out twice that he cannot calculate in this way and that he cannot make up numbers that aren't found in the sources. He doesn't give a damn, he just continues anyway. Last time, when I tagged the OR claims to give him the possibility to present sources for them, I also warned him that I would bring the matter here if he continued.[19] He ignored that as well. Given that I've directed Migang2g to

Persistent insertion of original research, misrepresentation of sources and synthesis of data coupled with persistent

WP:IDHT and lack of competence, particularly for someone who has a 6 year old account should be met with a swift block. Blackmane (talk

) 11:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think the second last sentence by Migang2g in this diff says it all: This is the reason I inserted my original research. This comes after Jeppiz tried in detail to explain why the edits were original reseach and why it is against policy. I'm not sure if this is a language-barrier issue or just a
  WP:SYNTH. Singularity42 (talk
  ) 11:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I have also wondered if the problem is that Migang2g's English isn't good or if he just

refuses to hear. That's why I've given him the benefit of doubt this far, and tried to explain over and over again why he cannot push OR of this kind. As you say, some restrictions would be needed know, because any attempt at discussing with him is fruitless. He knows and acknowledges that he has calculated all the numbers himself (apart from all those that he just made up), but he just doesn't seem to care. I've already reverted two times and tagged all the claims that aren't sourced (or "sourced" by misrepresenting the source), and I have no wish to start a long edit war, especially as Migang2g has made it perfectly clear that he will continue to behave in the same way.Jeppiz (talk

) 14:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• In USA, Jeppiz deleted the source about the Spanish speakers as a first language. It’s a direct source from the US census Bureau. There isn’t any discussion here, but Jeppiz deleted it.

• About European Union countries I used a direct source. It’s not the combination of two sources. The eurobarometer give us the population older than 15 years old of each country (page TS2), and the percentage of the population of these countries who speak Spanish enough to be able a conversation (Page T64). For example for France, eurobarometer says that 14% of 47,756,439 can keep a Spanish conversation. It’s the same to say that 6,685,901 can keep a conversation. Check also pages T40, T46 and T74, for other data I used. Jeppiz says that this is only a survey to 1,000 people. Of course. This is the best way to know the reality and to do a good statistic data. It's imposible to ask to everybody.

• About Brazil, I used a direct source from Instituto Cervantes (page 6). This source says that there are 12 million speakers with limited knowledges. Its not my calculation. This data was in the column: "Total Spanish speakers including speakers with limited knowledge". I added the last phrase, but Jeppiz always is reverting everything.

After these 3 points, I'm going to talk about other points I can understand the discussion:

• About 43.7 million people who speak Spanish very well. The Pewhispanic's source says that 82% of the Hispanic people in USA speak Spanish very well, and the Hispanic population is 53.3 million according to US census Bureau. If I can claim both data because both data have own their sources, mathematics says that 82% of 53.3 million = 43.7 million.

Readers can see that the figure is the combination of two sources, because is specified beside the figure with the reference number. But It isn't my own calculation. I didn’t make a statistic study to calculate the population of USA or the percentage of the population who speak Spanish very well.

Finally I used 7.8 million Spanish students. The students are frecuently used to talk about the speakers of a language. Arab for example is studied in the schools. Practically don't have a first language speakers. About English speakers, this wikipededia says that there are 1,500 million speakers, because there are 750 million speakers as a foreign language. It's a source from the British Council. In the Encyclopedia Britannica you can find similar figure. Of course It's included English students. Anyway I gave sources that talks about 50 million speakers. Instituto Cervantes (page 6) says that there are 37 million speakers as first language and 15 million speak Spanish with limited knowledge. This data was in the column: "Total Spanish speakers including speakers with limited knowledge" that I recently added part of the last phrase.

• About Morocco, I used a direct source, however the source says that there are between 4 and 7 million speakers, and I used 5.5 to have a concret figure. Maybe this figure could change it for a concreter data.

• Jeppiz also deleted the Hispanic immigrants in the European Union. Why? In the study Demografía de la Lengua española (page 37) says that there are 2,397,380 immigrants from Spain or Latin America who they are Spanish speakers as a first language. I did the same but specifying immigrants in each country, and the sum is less than 2.4 million. Migang2g (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Migang2g (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the above answer by Migang2g doesn't really address the issue. I agree with him about the first point concerning Spanish speakers in the US and I've reinserted that source. However, that still leaves more than 150 unsourced claims. The rest of Migang2g's answer consists of him explaining how he calculated his data, showing that he still does not hear the point: there should be no calculations at all. For the US, he thinks it's ok to combine data from different studies and calculate his own figure. For European countries, he thinks the Eurobarometer can be used to claim a number of speakers. It cannot, as the Eurobarometer never presents any such figures, only percentages. That equating "immigrants" (and immigrants alone) with "speakers" isn't possible should be obvious, and I hardly need to point out that a source saying "between 4 and 7 millions" cannot be used to claim "5.5 millions".

Apart from these problems, Migang2g doesn't address all the "facts" that simply are made up. So in short, it seems we all agree that Migang2g is calculating (and often making up) his own population figures. As everybody except Migang2g also point out, it is problematic and worrying that Migang2g still refuses to get the point. At Wikipedia, we cannot calculate population figures ourselves, not to mention making figures up.Jeppiz (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You can claim that I used two sources for the "very well" Spanish speakers in USA, but not for EU countries. I'm economist an I studied about survey and I can claim that the Eurobarometer's study is about the population of each country, older than 15 years old who speak the different languages. The study don't give us a figure, only the percentage, but the study was made thinking that is more representative and summarized to give us percentages, but they also give us their population calculation for the study, and that's the problem with the other source. Pewhispanic give us the pecentage 82% of the Hispanics who speak very well Spanish, but they don't say anything about the population data they used. But when a study talks about a percentage is a percentage of something. We need to know the quantity of population we are talking.

Migang2g (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Migang2g, what you describe above is the very conduct issue that has brought you here. You are applying your knowledge of economics and your study of the survey to interpret the results and put them in Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot accept your interpretation of the surveys, etc. Either the survey directly states it or it does not. If an interpretation is required, then you are adding your own

original research. Singularity42 (talk

) 21:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What we need from you at this time is an answer to the following question: Will you refrain from adding content based on your own original research, including, but not limited to a) your own interpretation of sources beyond what they directly state, b) your synthesis of two sources to create new information, and c) your own calculations using raw data contained in the sources? If the answer to that is anything but "Yes, you will refrain", then an administrator will have to take action. Singularity42 (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)----

Yes, I can refrain. I could added only direct sources where "citation needed" is required, but I consider that EU data used is a direct source. I could delete the percentages calculated and the figures where I used two sources combined, but remaining the EU data used as before.

The study: Demografía de la lengua española (page 37), uses the Eurobarometer 2006 to claim that there are almost 19 million people who speak Spanish including speakers with limites knowledges. It is also used in the List of countries by English-speaking population for the EU countries excluding UK. The problem here is that It wasn't considered the population data in the Eurobarometer 2012 older than 15 as I did. They used other population data source as in the talk page was debated, but the eurobarometer was considered as a good source.

I also have to say that in the table in the English language article, percentages was calculated according to the figures founded in the sources as I did. Then they must be corrected.

Migang2g (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Eurobarometer 2012 data figures are correct

I can understand the data were removed from the summary table. Those were totally correct but I used two sources to create an original result, but eurobarometer data is a direct source and It was removed again. In this study we can find the population older than 15 of each country, and the percentage who speak spanish with different levels. It is an Eurostat extimation through a survey made every 5 years (Eurobarometer 2001, 2006, 2012). Then, the percentages are from something. The percentages are about the population older than 15 presented in the page TS2 as It is explained. It's an extimation, with a margin error as every stadistic study, but It's a study to be used or to keep into account. It isn't raw data, because the result of population who speak Spanish is equal to the percentage of the population older than 15. Mathematics says it. This is the reason Eurobarometer present us always the population data older than 15. Eurobarometer presented us percentages instead of figures, because there are many data tables and It is more summarized to present us only percentages.

This data also was used in the List of countries by English-speaking population, but in that list It was used the combination of two sources because It was used the total population from another sources, and It wasn't used the population older than 15 from Eurobarometer 2012. Migang2g (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Filmmaking has just done so - any guesses? [20] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The editing pattern is also kinda weird. He seems obsessed with removing entries and flags from several TV shows list articles. I'm unsure if they're improvements or not.-- cyclopia^speak! 13:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps in an attempt to fool anyone about to report him to be blocked that he was already blocked Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I have removed it - Andy, did you attempt to ask the editor themselves before running off to ANI? GiantSnowman 14:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No - and you are right, I probably should have done. I seemed not to have notified User:Filmmaking about this thread too - I thought I had, but obviously didn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think she likes TV shows so she edit TV show articles. Squidville1 (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a wierd vibe to all this, notice the edits by Bretonbanquet(who also has a block for vandalism) who seems to be up for defending this user at all costs and their edits are quite different too(wont call it vandalism yet until some one can see a trend or dig more).

 웃  

15:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Bretonbanquet's edits to User talk:Filmmaking appear to have been perfectly reasonable responses to some terrible edits by NewFranco. I haven't looked very deeply into Filmmaking's edits yet, so I won't put forward an opinion on that, but this may explain why NewFranco went after Filmmaking. Neither of the two has covered themselves in glory, I think. bobrayner (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Amit, would you care to explain your comments? I do not have a block for vandalism, and just what the hell are you insinuating? Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

just because it is old doesn't make it vanish, and get off my user talk page.

 웃  

17:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, you do - but the fact it's from 2005 makes its mention here slightly...curious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

(

WP:AGF now, thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk

) 18:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looking at Bretonbanquet's edits in 2005 I can't see any vandalism, but hey, the blocking admin has long since retired and although the wisdom of digging up a brief block in 2005 is questionable, we're not going to make that issue any better by poking at it with the AN/I stick. Let's try a different point; a.amitkumar, could you explain why you think that Bretonbanquet is "up for defending this user at all costs and their edits are quite different too(wont call it vandalism yet until some one can see a trend or dig more)"? bobrayner (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

[33]

Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Edit summary removed. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Avanhard (Vorokhta) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have noticed that someone tried to pad this article several times with various links to a foreign commercial third-party websites, such as this one, this and this. All of these commercial sites are using self-published basic info about resort (and few photos of unknown source) for a self-promotion of their own commercial services (namely selling the tours or rooms at the hotels at this particular resort). Am I correct to assume that such sources (which have the only purpose of self-promoting their own commercial service) should not be used due to

I agree as per

 웃  

02:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

What's the problem? Clear-cut advertising case. Just delete the links again and ask the user to discuss on the talkpage per

WP:BRD. You're not the one edit-warring here, so I don't see anything worthy of ANI just yet. He's only posted on the talk page once. I'm sorry I no longer have the time to just help you with this, but I don't see any reason why I (or anyone else) would need to at this point. Also, try pointing out to him that "vandalism" is a label that should never be applied to anything but obvious bad-faith edits and so is clearly being used wrongly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 11:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It would hardly be fair to leave 173.68.110.16 to deal with this alone; naturally, they're worried about 3RR. I've warned the user on their page. Thanks for raising this, 173.68.110.16, and feel free to alert me on my page if there's more trouble. Bishonen | talk 11:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC).

Negative, the user 173.68.110.16 has never tried to discuss his edits, but rather had intentions to delete the whole article without any discussion. The article itself is not a "clear case" of commercial advertising, but I agree that a lot of links may have lead to such assumption. However, I am willing to improve the article in near future. Also, please not that the article is not about a town, but rather a ski resort that is located in the town of Vorokhta (a bid difference). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You are intentionally trying to accuse me of

WP:AfD and never intended to (if I wanted to I would've nominated this article right away). I gave you time to improve it and make it more useful for general readers. What did YOU do? You basically said "fuck you" then promptly reverted my edits again, marking them as "vandalism"... Just like you did before. And only NOW you are "willing to improve" it in a proper way... Why such dishonesty? 173.68.110.16 (talk

) 07:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You can ask

WP:AfDing it was somewhat premature, as I have explained it on its nomination page. 173.68.110.16 (talk

) 07:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the AfD that IP address is sketchy as hell, and possibly related to the two brand new accounts (well, one of them registered in 2008, then just came back, five years later) which showed up at the AfD.Volunteer Marek 23:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I agree - this IP address is very "sketchy", all it does is vandalizing "foreign topic"-related articles as well as other "non-foreign topic"-related articles! Most likely a troll or a vandal. You should definitely investigate it further! Let me know what you will find, ok? 173.68.110.16 (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@