Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive890

User:Packerfansam has been around for a long time and has accumulated tens of thousands of edits, many focusing on Wisconsin legislative and / or political articles. He has created more than 3300 articles – many of them very short biographies, but a lot by even that measure. With this depth of experience (and a clean block log) it’s perplexing that in the past few days following a several-month editing hiatus, he has begun to remove substantial chunks of content from a variety of articles, accompanied by vague (and sometimes misleading) edit summaries. In many of the cases, the excised material relates to Jews, Muslims, African-Americans or LGBT matters, raising NPOV concerns.

Michigan – removed a religious affiliation table, and all narrative references to Jews, Muslims

New York City – removed textual references to the Stonewall Inn, Jews, LBGT demographics, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism

Gabriel Riesser – removed description of subject’s Jewish ancestry and its consequences for the subject

Hamburg – removed references to Muslims, Jews

Kansas – removed references to Mormons, Jews, Muslims and other less-represented religions in the state

I raised concerns about this on the editor’s Talk page, first in brief narrative fashion, followed by templates when the edits continued without response. See link. Since then the unexplained and apparently POV edits have continued:

John Johnson – dab page – removed link to John Johnson (Latter Day Saints), "early Latter Day Saint and owner of the John Johnson Farm, a historical site in Mormonism"

Republican Party (United States) – removed entire section on LGBT issues as well as other references to gays; also a description of Jews as voting mostly Democratic.

I am bringing the matter here because the edits are, to my eyes, troubling, and need attention; and the editor is unresponsive. Furthermore the editor has a long and apparently productive history here, and these excisions are not so plainly “vandalism” or disruption that they’re suitable for AIV if they continue.

Thanks in advance for any comments and / or assistance. JohnInDC (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary shortened, simplified and removed possible redundant content is not reflective of the edits which are often completely removing all mention of specific groups of people. How can content be redundant if you remove all of it that concerns gays or Jews? These edits definitely are imposing a strange POV where some people are just erased from the public record. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

He's trying to purge Wikipedia of any evidence for the existence of people who aren't Christian and Republican. In May, he even removed references to the Democratic Party from over 100 articles (and was reverted).[1][2][3] I would support an indefinite block for deceptive editing. KateWishing (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block - even though he has a long history and a clean block record, this editor appears to either have become very extreme of late or decided he's
  YO
  😜 13:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition, he's not responsive at his talk page, the last time he responded there seems to be to thank someone over 5 years ago. As for the recent edits, the edit summaries clearly misrepresent the edits, and his removal of content has become clearly disruptive. Despite his constructive edits, these edits suggest

WP:NOTHERE. Doug Weller (talk

) 13:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

JohnInDC was concerned about the wrong citations Packerfansam had added to several Wisconsin Legislators article very recently. I had been looking at Packerfansam's Wisconsin Legislators articles to see if a category, etc., needs to be added. I did add the correct Wisconsin Blue Books citation to the articles that JohnInDC was concerned about. And I was concerned about about Packerfansam removing the political affliations of several Wisconsin Legislators articles with no reasons given. I hope this helps-Thank youRFD (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible this account is compromised ? Considering his long history of productive edits, then this sudden shift ... maybe it's something to look at ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I had the same thought but in the main, the edit interests seem to have been pretty stable. I guess in the final analysis it doesn't matter - the edits are unacceptable no matter who's responsible. (It is mystifying though.) JohnInDC (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note that he stopped editing in August of last year, and when he returned 24 April, this is when the problems began. The possibility of a compromised account is real, as is a CIR issue. He has never been one to communicate, I didn't see any talk in his contribs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• YO
  😜 02:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

A CIR issue may still be at hand. Medication, life events, all kinds of things can change a person's competency, either temporarily or permanently. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

First things, despite the assumption, I'm a 'she'. Second, to answer people's suspicions, I have numerous health issues that have escalated in recent times. I don't feel it's necessary to go into specifics, but is it possible they can effect my judgment? Sure. That, along with other issues in my life can explain gaps between logging in, such as the last couple days. Now, I think along with some of the other issues being discussed, my not logging in for two days is being exaggerated. It was not because of these accusations, I didn't received a notice of this until I just logged in for this session. Sometimes health and other life issues take my attention. The extended length between updates last year involves family issues that, again, I don't think it's necessary to be specific about. If, during these times, I was hacked and I haven't realized it, my apologies. I have recently changed my password, maybe that would help to stop other possible issues. Now, the concerns about the links to the Wisconsin Blue Book tend to can be tough I understand. Google Books reverts you back to the original page you were on prior. If you were looking as something on page 1 and later decide to post a link for page 2, it decides to take you back to 1. Some of the re-categorizing is simply because it doesn't seem like the article necessarily belongs there, such as with Category:Mayors of places in Wisconsin, where there were some subjects whose job titles didn't match the criteria. Thanks to those who have offered their support. Packerfansam (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response here, and good luck with your health issues. Can you please offer an explanation, for example, for this edit [4] to

topic-banned from editing articles about religion and politics? JoeSperrazza (talk

) 21:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Packerfansam: could you please address some of the issues such as Joe's question above?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, let me first address that if anything I did seemed to be misleading or deceptive in articles, I deeply apologize. It seems to me, among other things, if you have a certain location (city, state, etc.) where the residents are overwhelmingly affiliated with a certain group or denomination, it bloats the article and makes it excessively long if you go into detail about other groups that make up a microscopic (sometimes like 0.15% or less) portion of the population and the culture. Thanks Packerfansam (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As for being compromised, I can't answer definitely without carefully combing through and trying to remember things, but it's happened with me on other sites in the past so it's possible. Packerfansam (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm unpersuaded. That reasoning would maybe explain removing mention of Jews in Kansas (though it's 2%, not .015%) but it certainly is hard to square with editing out Jews in New York City or mention of the "largest gay and bisexual community in the United States" that is found there. That's just one counterexample - there are several others cited above, and below as well. JohnInDC (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

First, let me point out that it was 0.15 not .015, there is a difference. In regards to NYC, there was a section about the city's many, many landmarks and none of the others were mentioned by name, except for I think it was Greenwich, as if it were special or more noteworthy than the others. Without getting into what's right or wrong even, it seems strange to me that one should be especially singled out and recognized apart from the others. Packerfansam (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Pardon, but that is an inadequate if not disingenuous explanation for this [5] edit to NYC, where, as you did with many other edits, you removed all mention of non-Christian religions:

Christianity is the most prevalently practiced religion in New York, followed by Judaism, with approximately 1.1 million Jews (יהודי) in New York City,^[1][2] over half living in Brooklyn.^[3] Islam ranks third in New York City, with official estimates ranging between 600,000 and 1,000,000 observers and including 10% of the city's public schoolchildren,^[4] followed by Hinduism, Buddhism, and a variety of other religions, as well as atheism or self-identifying with no organized religious affiliation.

Try again. JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please let's don't go through these one by one, arguing whether ".15" or ".015" makes the edits any more defensible. A full-throated denial would be a good start - if Packerfansam doesn't want to go through her contribution history to identify the odious edits that were made by a hacker using her name, the examples here are sufficient to tell her in an instant whether she was responsible for them. Absent a straight-up denial, which we don't have, an acknowledgment or recognition that maybe, perhaps, it's problematic to remove references to, e.g., Jews in New York, Muslims in Michigan, gay marriage from the Republican Party, the Jewish ancestry and civil rights advocacy of a German lawyer, the sexual orientation of a the first gay Republican legislator in Wisconsin, or - by the IP a day ago - the sexual orientation of the Swedish Womens' Soccer team coach. And that's before we even start on the misleading edit summaries that accompanied these changes (for which she offers a conditional apology). So far I see nothing to assure us that Packerfansam recognizes these edits as problematic or that she will not make similar edits going forward. JohnInDC (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Continued problematic editing that is continuing to occur noted here, together with

Good hand/bad hand editing noted here are both of considerable concern. JoeSperrazza (talk

) 12:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, this is what certain people seem to want to see - yes, I made updates that are causing this debacle. You can argue about my judgment and whether it's been altered. To me, in my judgment in what I recall, it seemed proper. I don't necessarily know if it was to the excess others believe it was, so I can't rule out a hack. I don't have plans to go out and make particularly controversial edits, my plan for the imminent future is to continue with legislator bios, creating and updating articles as would be appropriate with that. Packerfansam (talk), 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Response & comment - This is at best a grudging acknowledgment by Packerfansam of the problems she has caused with her POV edits and misleading summaries, not to mention (indeed not mentioned) the edit warring and sock puppetry. It isn't just "some people" who want to see an explanation and assurances, but nearly every single person who has participated in this discussion. I do not believe that Packerfansam appreciates that her edits contravened Wikipedia policy, or that that were in any way improper or disruptive. That being said I also believe that the foregoing is about all we are going to get out of her on the subject, and, as halfhearted as it is, it is something. She is, at least, speaking about it. Going forward, which I assume will take place without a block, I personally would like to see something a little more explicit about the ground rules, whether it comes from her, or from us, by rough agreement. Maybe something like, "no edits to remove content from articles re religion, sexual preference or other demographic characteristics" - I don't know. What I do know is that "no immediate plans" to make controversial edits is not reassuring, and isn't very helpful as a standard against which to measure future behavior. Thoughts and / or comments welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Look, I have no idea what can offend some people. To me, for instance, creating an article about a notable politician, listing them in the proper areas for where they were born, where they lived and went to school and things like that doesn't seem like it should bother anybody. But I can't be sure what somebody could have a problem with. Can I give 100% certainty that nobody will ever have a problem with something I write ever again? No. Do I want to go through this stress again when I already have enough in my life? Also no. Packerfansam (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If what you mean by that is that you intend henceforth to stick to creating stub articles for Wisconsin politicians, then you are much less likely to run into POV and bias problems. I would recommend including the political affiliation of the subjects, when it is in the sources, and ensuring that the sources you cite actually link to the subject of the article you are creating. I, we, are not asking you to promise you'll never offend anyone again; rather we are asking that you stop removing material from articles because something about it offends you. Thanks. Now let's see what some of the other editors have to say about this. JohnInDC (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I found your response to be very disappointing. I had thought you "got it", and were willing to move forward, but just didn't want to explicitly own up to your mistakes. But your answers, above, make me wonder. Do you really think the issue was a vague, hard to understand "some people" being "offend"ed? Do you really think the issue was anything to do with was "creating an article about a notable politician, listing them in the proper areas for where they were born, where they lived and went to school and things like "? If so, you have a serious problem of

competence

. Examples were laid out for you very clearly here and on your talk page. You are ignoring those details here, and have repeatedly blanked them on your talk page. As a reminder, the problems include this list and many more:

Michigan – removed a religious affiliation table, and all narrative references to Jews, Muslims

• New York City – removed textual references to the Stonewall Inn, Jews, LBGT demographics, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism
• Gabriel Riesser – removed description of subject’s Jewish ancestry and its consequences for the subject
• Hamburg – removed references to Muslims, Jews
• Kansas – removed references to Mormons, Jews, Muslims and other less-represented religions in the state
• John Johnson – dab page – removed link to John Johnson (Latter Day Saints), "early Latter Day Saint and owner of the John Johnson Farm, a historical site in Mormonism"
• Republican Party (United States) – removed entire section on LGBT issues as well as other references to gays; also a description of Jews as voting mostly Democratic.
• [6][7][8] removed references to the Democratic Party from over 100 articles
• [9] remove mention of Jews in New York City
• [10] removal of the sexual orientation of the Swedish Womens' Soccer team coach
• disruptive

Are you really sure you want to continue in this way? JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Time to close We do not know the full circumstances under which Packerfansam is editing. We know he has health issues and we should leave it at that. He is constructively engaging editors about issues they have, and although we may strongly disagree with some of the edits he has made, he clearly wants to edit constructively and with good faith. Could there be future problems? Sure, but we can deal with them should they arise. Let's assume good faith and encourage Packerfansam to continue editing. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Again, it's she, either way, much appreciated. Packerfansam (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for getting your gender wrong! --I am One of Many (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not too much to ask that Packerfansam state precisely what she intends to do, or not do, going forward; or that we collectively outline our expectations of her. Her POV and misleading edits were blockable and while she is now at least discussing them, she has given no indication at all that she appreciates what the problem is (apologizing if she has been misleading; confessing to having no idea which of her edits "might offend some people", as though unpredictably thin-skinned readers were the heart of it) and I would like just a bit of clarity about what is expected of her going forward so that if, three or four weeks - or 5 months - hence, we see a new run of POV purges, someone can point back and say, "that is not what you said you would do". If she does not understand the problem, then she can't exercise meaningful judgment in avoiding it in the future. Other than that - yes, I agree, we are done here. JohnInDC (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is too much at this point. Packerfansam has edited here, without issues, for years. If there are issues in the next few weeks or months, we can deal with them. If the edits in question were due to misunderstandings and/or lapses in judgement, then moving on means she moves on to continued constructive editing. If we continue to push this thing, maybe she says "The hell with this, I don't need this in my life.", she moves on, and we lose another editor. You have accomplished what is important: She is aware of the issues, acknowledged them, stated that she wants to contribute constructively. Now, let's assume good faith and deal with issues in the future if they occur. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't seem to quit - Promises notwithstanding, Packerfansam just this morning edited Omaha, Nebraska to remove mention of synagogues in the city. Diff here. She does not seem able to help herself. She has been systematically removing references in articles to non-Christians and non-traditional sexual orientations and despite the extensive discussion here - as well as her claim that she doesn't want any more headaches - she continues to do so. She does not understand the problem, and she is manifestly unable to stop. JohnInDC (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It's getting ridiculous at this point. I am One of Many, I applaud your efforts to caution restraint, but I daresay that assuming good faith at this point at this point would be counterproductive and deleterious to the project. And to be honest, a bit silly. Editors are beginning to become exasperated cleaning up her POV edits, which she apparently has no intention of stopping. As of now, the editor has shown no actual remorse, has been generally avoidant and disingenuous, ignored several attempts to communicate, and is unrelenting in making their unabashedly POV edits (often coupled with misleading edit summaries). Whether they've contributed any significant content in the past is immaterial, and a point rendered moot considering the fact that this behaviour is continuing. For some time, the editor in question has been editing with an obvious political / religious agenda, and is completely unapologetic in doing so. This discussion has gone on for almost a week now, and extending them any good will is almost abetting the disruption, and appears to be only forestalling an inevitable indefinite block. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Support Indefinite block, per above, and no efforts to alter their behaviour or even acknowledge that this is inappropriate. An unblock, of course, should be conditional on a promise to reach consensus regarding removal or wholesale alteration of material related to religion, race, and sexual orientation. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

No sign of abating - Early this morning (June 23) she removed a reference to a "figure study of a nude young woman" painted by artist Clarence Holbrook Carter as "POV". A couple of editors recently weighed in on her Talk page, urging her to steer clear of religion, so it bears repeating that she has never confined her excisions to those matters, but has swept in sexuality as well - e.g., removing references to various subjects' sexual orientation, and LGBT political issues; edit warring at University of Wisconsin–Madison to remove "Playboy" as as reference on the ground that it is not reliable or a place for respected or credible journalism. Repeated admonitions don't seem to have had much effect, but if suasion is the path to be followed, it should at least be comprehensive. JohnInDC (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Time to close Issues are now about content and not behavior. Behavior has been mis-characterized in above "Can't seem to quit" where the editor removed an uncited sentence as much about Christians as it was about Jews. Attempts to paint this as anti-semitic fall short. Subsequently, you removed cited material that she added in a blind revert. Uncool. The material under "No sign of abating" is unsourced and indeed has a POV because of striking which is opinion..."Carter's striking figure study...". Being unsourced she can remove it...personally, I would have just removed the adjective but her actions aren't egregious here. The other diffs are old rehash from May. It is beginning to look as if editors have an ax to grind. Defer to
  dispute resolution for content matters.
   — Berean Hunter (talk)
  15:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I disagree that it has become a kind of rolling content dispute, and I don't care for the suggestion that I've got an axe to grind. Packerfansam's editing focus and pattern (religion / sexuality / politics) beyond the creation of short articles in my view remains unchanged. And too I confess to being a bit mystified by the deference that is being shown to her given that she has failed to address any but one or two of her earlier, indefensible edits (and those, only in the most general of terms). But I do agree that this has become a huge time sink, and my own convictions notwithstanding, the issue seems to be finding no purchase here. I don't like seeing my credibility as an editor called into question, so I will let this go if that's the decision. JohnInDC (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• So she removed one reference to Christianity (that also removed more Jewish info) after this AfD began? (And again, that would be valid population info that she randomly stripped it out for no reason from an article about a major U.S. city, well after this AfD began). Yes, I see how that definitely proves she has no problems with Jews and there's no problem with behavior....
  YO
  😜 14:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

We need a range block because of recent activity by the long-term hoaxer, the Kenny Loggins vandal. IPs involved today are:

• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:5413:8F44:17A6:5B40 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:316C:945D:AF85:E19A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Perhaps we can temporarily rangeblock 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0. Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

And now another spate of hoaxing by 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:A1D3:9BE1:C1A2:3BFC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)).

15 of the last 16 hoaxer IPs started with 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0, so it would be very helpful to block this range. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And very quickly after that one we have this one: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0:7132:4B62:E645:80BE (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Still looking for an appropriate rangeblock. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• HEY. ADMINS. SOMEBODY GIVE BINKSTERNET A RANGEBLOCK PLEASE. I'd do if if I knew how to. I mean, I can, but I'd probably block a whole state. That still doesn't make me care, as long as it's not my own state, but the Foundation will probably cut my allowance. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Maybe this will help: IPv6 range calculation tool. It was recommended last time this came up here, and I bookmarked it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but I really shouldn't be messing with any ranges... Drmies (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
      • The range needed to cover the four above IPs, as calculated from that tool, is 2602:306:bd7e:caa0::/64 - I have no idea if this is a sensible range to block though. Sam Walton (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
        • mw:Help:Range_blocks/IPv6 implies that this covers 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IPs, so perhaps not appropriate. That said, that's a fraction of the total possible IPv6 IPs, so I have no idea. Sam Walton (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Pinging Mr. IPv6 Jasper Deng to see if he can help out. And (canvassing) perhaps more admins could put in their two cents here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Just trying to bring another issue to your attention here, so not sure if it is appropriate for me to comment, but a 64 bit prefix is the minimum fully functional subnet that can be allocated. So it is probably a very good fit to block BFG (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• @Drmies and Samwalton9: 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0::/64 indeed is the range you want to block. The duration you should use for this is the same as you would use for a single AT&T IPv4 address, although this should be considered more static than a dynamic IPv4. If it's a residential Internet provider, a /64 in IPv6, i.e. having the first four digit groups in common, is easily treatable as a single IP. Do not be deterred by the number of addresses blocked, because by design very few of them will be used.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Jasper, I appreciate the note, but I'm just not going to venture there. I wish we had a button we could push that would pull up a list of admins willing and able to make rangeblocks. I'm not one of them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm blocking 2602:306:BD7E:CAA0::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for two months. The log shows that the previous rangeblock by User:Monty845 expired on 14 June, which does fit with the dates of the above vandalism reports. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to add a technical note, while a /64 should be, and appears here to be a single user akin to an IPv4 address, the protocol is new enough that we should keep in mind the possibility that it may not always be, with either rapidly changing /64s from one user, or many users on one /64. Also, when this block expires, if we need to extend it again, linking the previous range block log may help get a quicker block. Monty₈₄₅ 00:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I do have to emphasize that looking at WHOIS is of utmost importance with IPv6; my comment strongly depends on the ISP being residential. It most certainly does not apply to mobile or satellite ISP's.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Drmies, Category:Wikipedia_administrators_willing_to_make_range_blocks --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks NeilN. No wonder I hadn't seen it--it's only been here since 2008. As far as I'm concerned, though, it should be renamed: "able to make..." Drmies (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I want to inform you about unacceptable behavior of the editor Croata concerning the articles Bulgars/ Dulo clan.

During the past 3 months (since the beginning of March 2015) he was constantly removing all my edits on these articles stating that they were "vandalism", "unrelated info", "false positive edits", "fringe theories edits" or simply calling them POV. He denies the reliability of obviously excellent sources as Yury Zuev and Edwin G. Pulleyblank stating that they represent minority point of view. For example on 19 June 2015‎ he removed my edit on the article Bulgars where I have added information about the origin of Utigurs, a major Bulgar tribe, stating that the edit is "false positive" and "unrelated info". On 6 June 2015‎ I have warned him that in his version of the article Dulo clan, his conclusion "Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples" is not supported by the cited four books - nowhere on the cited pages there is such a conclusion. He ignored my warning and reverted the article 6 times after that without bothering to correct this sentence or to remove it. On the talk page of Dulo clan article I have suggested many ways how to improve the article, for example :

• I have suggested to move the information about the historical rulers of the clan from the section "Research History" to the article's intro where this information should be placed because it is well documented
• I have suggested to removed the information that early rulers of the clan were claiming Attilid descend from the article's intro to "Research History" or to restate it in the form that some historians think they had such a descend. It is not known if they were claiming this.
• I have suggested to improve the article Bulgars by replacing the very first sentence "... semi-nomadic warrior tribes of Turkic extraction" with more accurate statement " The three major tribes were Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs, whose origin is still unidentified"

None of these suggestions (and many more) were accepted. The editor Croata doesn't accept any independent additions, he considers his versions of the articles to be final and set in stone. Also he tends to place disproportionate importance of the Turkic theory about the origin of Bulgars and Dulo clan and doesn't accept other theories about their origin to be added to the articles. Such a behavior is unacceptable and it does not help the readers of these articles.

PavelStaykov (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've reformatted. You didn't notify Crovata, and misspelled his name. The very top of this page clearly states you must do this. I have gone ahead and done so. Now to look at the merits.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• This is going to take longer than I have to give tonight, but the other stuff still needed doing. User:Bbb23 is familiar with Crovata, so I would draw his attention here. Looking briefly, it seems more of a content dispute, but there may be some behavioral issues by one or both, so I will leave to B and others to determine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• No promises, but I'll try to look at this tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I experience technical problems and don't know if will manage to actively follow the discussion. However, I neither have time to waste discussing the same thing over and over and over again. The violation of

• I'm not going to get embroiled in a content dispute about which I know next to nothing. Even if I did, the only issue here for me is conduct. I've blocked
  dispute resolution to resolve their content issues. As for their conduct, if I see either editor revert at either article, that editor risks being blocked, and a revert back after a block may also be met with a block. Both of them should stay away from both articles.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 15:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Bbb23: The problem with the whole issue is that there's no constructive content dispute for Wikipedia, yet the fringe theories and personal POV/OR which are forced to be included in the articles which have nothing to do with - the violation of NPOV. I advise all involved to read all three linked talk pages to understand the situation. I cannot agree with the last statement, why someone who defended the articles from unconstructive edits, and rewrote the articles according modern scholarship, must stay away? Since 14 May personally rewrote the Bulgars article and done major constructive edits, and as currently is in the process of GOCE review for GAN review, and there few cites additionally for inclusion, it seeks if not edit activity at least my attention.--Crovata (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    • If it's as clear-cut as you state, then the dispute resolution should be straightforward. In the interim, my warning stands.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
      • @Bbb23: Sincerely, I simply do not know which of the claims, articles and talk pages above should take for dispute resolution. They all were answered here, talk pages time ago, and there probably even more he seeks for. I need your advice, and personal inclusion of PavelStaykov for dispute resolution as he began those disputes. He needs to decide what claims should be brought to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I don't want any kind of disapproval from his side if missed to mention some of his claims we dispute. @PavelStaykov: Respond.--Crovata (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

First, I want to answer Crovata's accusation that I have "aversion for the term "Turks"" - this is not true. I am not obliged to share such personal information here, but I will do it. I grew up in small town in southern Bulgaria ( Haskovo ) which is of mixed population - Bulgarians and Turks. One of my best friends during my childhood was a Turk. I live in Sofia now and one of my friends is also Turk, and I value his friendship more than that of many of my Bulgarian friends. So, I don't have "aversion for the term "Turks", nor I have aversion for Turkic people or their culture. What I want is simply these 2 articles to be written in the best possible way. Also before I start the discussion, I want to make some general remarks. It is a common misbelief that Bulgars are extinct, or that they merged with Slavic people 7-10 centuries AD thus forming contemporary Bulgarians. This is not true. Even now three type of faces can clearly be seen on the streets of Bulgaria, all of them of obvious Indo-European origin, but definitely distinct. It is especially striking if someone comes from abroad. The approximate ratio is 1:1:1. I can take photos and upload them to the Bulgar's article. My explanation is that the proposed by scholars merging of Bulgars, Slavs and Thracian's continues even today - after all Bulgaria was a rural country up to 1950-1960 and marriages happened inside small rural communities. One of my friends took genetic tests and he was told that he is of Thracian origin. Personally I don't need to do this to know that I am of Slavic origin - it's enough to look at myself in the mirror.

About the article Bulgars. 1. The very first sentence in its current version states that Bulgars were "tribes of Turkic extraction". This is not known for sure - may be they were, may be not. What is known for sure is that they were nomads. If they were Turks, of Turkic extraction, Iranian, or Indo-European tribes influenced by Turkic and Iranian people is still debated among scholars. Using euphemistic phrases as "Turkic extraction" is not a constructive edit, it is an obfuscation of the truth. It is much better to state that their origin is still unidentified and to enumerate different Bulgar tribes: Utigurs, Kutrigurs, Onogurs and so on. Crovata's opinion that these tribes were not Bulgars is ridiculous - just type these words in Google and read. Not to mention numerous books and textbooks where this is explained.

2. My second point is to state in the article intro that some of the Bulgar tribes participated in the union of the Huns - this is well documented. Most Roman, Greeks and Byzantines sources used the words Huns and Bulgars indiscriminately to describe the same people. Actually many scholars equate Bulgars and the (European) Huns. This can be done in the 3rd sentence of the article. This will help the reader to understand better the origin of the Bulgars. Stating that they envelop " other ethnic groups and cultural influences, such as Hunnic..." is not accurate. Huns were not ethnic group, they were conglomeration of different tribes, many of them Bulgars.

3. In the section "Etymology and origin" I want to include the identification made by Yury Zuev and Edwin G. Pulleyblank that Utigurs were Yuezhi tribe. Both scholars are renowned and the identification is undisputable. Also it is a base for research among many modern Bulgarian scholars as Pr. A. Stamatov, Dr. P. Tsvetkov, Dr. G. Voinikov and others.

4. Section "History" - the subtitle is Turkic migration. This is misleading and I would suggest to be removed. If Crovata is making such implications, probably he could explain exactly which Turkic tribes practiced artificial cranial deformation? "Further information: Turkic migration and Huns" - this is OK. The second sentence is controversial. What would mean "Interaction with the Hunnic tribes, causing the migration..." if the Bulgars were Huns themselves, to interact with whom? Also the cited source is not available online.

5. Section " History", cited source 40c, pages 127-128 - does not contain such information. Which line ?

6. Section ethnicity, the 3rd paragraph - it starts with "When the Turkic tribes began to enter into the Pontic–Caspian steppe...as early as the 2nd century AD" is also misleading. It is generally considered that Turkic migration started much later and that the tribes in question are of unknown origin, they spoke language similar to proto - Turkic. May be here we could include the explanation given by Zuev that these tribes were actually Wusuns?

7. Section " Anthropology and Genetics" emphasizes too much on the origin of the Turks - paragraphs 2 and 3. What is the point here ? This article is not about the origin of the Turks.

8. Bulgars practiced Artificial Cranial Deformation and this is stated in the article, but I think the discussion here could be extended, it is well known that European Huns practiced artificial cranial deformation and they can be traced (using this) to North China.

9. I want to include research paper (by Voinikov) that modern Bulgarian language contains a lot of Tocharian words. It is published in Bulgarian language but with Google translate it can be read by everyone.

93.152.143.113 (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, it may be taken into account that through IP 93.152.143.113 wrote the same person as the one through PavelStaykov. The info in the intro about personal life (and previously where allegedly confirmed that Pavel Staykov is the personal name, and by education physicist) is useless and irrelevant for the whole discussion. The all 9 points were already discussed, and properly dismissed as are against the general scholarship(!), actually any relevant scholar consideration. This points are based on extreme and specially chosed sources and very minor considerations. They just confirm the lack of knowledge, will to understand, and disregard of general scholarship and evidence. The articles of Utigurs, Kutrigurs, Onogurs are currently being rewrote by me and his deny of their separate identity (which is something generally accepted!) is incredibly delusional and further discreditable. That's typical example of original research and personal POV violating NPOV. Even worse, he claims two different things, that the Utigurs point 1. were a Bulgar tribe, while in point 3. were a Yuezhi tribe. He doen't have basic knowledge about the Utigurs and Kutrigurs and how they existed in the vicinity of the Bulgars simultaneously, and participated in the battles and politics of Eastern Roman Empire. The Bulgars were not Huns, they were not equated at all, yet the name "Hun" became a general term or exonym for nomadic intruders from the East. This consideration, also in the point 4, is so wrong it's just ridiculous that it needs to be discussed. The scholar Dr. G. Voinikov revolutionary considerations (and the fringe Indo-European-Yuezhi theory) were not cited by any prominent scholar because he is an independent amateur scholar who is not at all educated in the field of linguistics or history - he finished medicine. No strange that no academic scholar cites his research. The personal POV and OR is based upon two reliable scholars (but whose considerations have nothing to do with Bulgars, but Utigurs, and claiming that the "identification is undisputable" is something generally not accepted!) and unreliable scholars. Replying to all the points for the XY time would be too long and waste of my time. @Dennis Brown:@Bbb23: Please give me advice how to properly write the dispute resolution, and for ever to end this unconstructive discussion. Should I cite every claim word by word? This 9 points deal with the article of the Bulgars, but not of the Dulo clan (where most of his activity was involved, and first comment dealt with).--Crovata (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Crovata: I didn't read the wall of text by the other party. I would forget about what the other user says. Their part in the dispute resolution is to set forth their own reasons for the content of the two articles. You, @Crovata, should decide what you disagree with (not set forth here) but what you disagree with in the two articles and explain why. @PavelStaykov: It is not a good idea to edit anywhere on Wikipedia without logging in to your account.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Bulgars were Huns, and Crovata knows this very well. Almost all serious historians accept this:

1. SANPING CHEN : "In fact contemporary European sources kept equating the Bulgars with the Huns" - page 8, line 1 ^[1]

2. Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, The world of the Huns : Cassiodorus, writing his Gothic historv in the 520’s or early 530’s, and Ennodius (t 521) repeatedly calls the Bulgarians “Huns.” - page 164

Provided that what Ennodius said about the Bulgars, whom he equated with the Huns... page 199

Jordanes’ Bulgars and Huns in this chapter of the Getica are but two names of the same people. Schirren thought that Jordanes simply followed Cassiodorus, who in Varia VIII, 10, 4, likewise identified the Bulgars with the Huns. - page 432, line 5

3. Steven Runciman in his book " A history of the First Bulgarian Empire" ^[2] repeatedly identifies Bulgars as Huns. The first part of the book is named The children of the Huns:

the blood of the Scourge of God flows now in the valleys of the Balkans, diluted by time and the pastoral Slavs. page 4, last line

On Attila’s death, his empire crumbled. His people, who had probably been only a conglomeration of kindred tribes that he had welded together, divided again into these tribes; and each went its own way. One of these tribes was soon to be known as the Bulgars. page 5

the Bulgar branch of the Huns - page 7 line 4

The Bulgars, we know, were Huns ... - page 12, line 7

the Imperial writers use their name, the Huns’, and the Bulgars’ indiscriminately to describe the same race. - page 15, line 16

and so on. Bulgars and Huns were the same people - that's why many historian use the term Hunno-Bulgars. I don't know what game is playing Crovata, but it is not serving the main purpose of every Encyclopedia - to tell the readers the truth. His next "invention" about Utigurs and Kutrigurs - every serious book states that they were Bulgar tribes:

Hyun Jin Kim, The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe ^[3]

the Utigur wing of the Bulgar Huns - page 253, cit. 28

Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs were in all likelihood identical with the Bulgars - page 141, line 6

Steven Runciman :

it is impossible not to see in the Bulgars of Theophanes the bulk of the old Utigur people - page 15, line 13

Already in 1772 (Allgem. Nord. Geschichte, 358), the German historian August Schloetzer identified the Utigurs and the Kutrigurs with Bulgars, on the basis of the information provided by Greek-language late antiquity chronicles (Procopius, Agathias of Mirena, Menander, Theophylact Simocatta). Procopius of Ceasarea points out that Utigurs and Kutrigurs attacked the Goths during the fourth century.

The whole story is simple. Approximately around 2000 BC, a second wave of Indo-Europeans appear in North China. They were practicing artificial cranial deformation - the first graves with artificially deformed skulls in Tarim Basin (in North China) are from around 2000 BC. These people later were called by Chinese

This theory is supported by several key facts, well established, and they must be presented in the article to the reader:

1. There is no evidence that European Huns ( and Bulgars ) were Xiongnu:

   Otto Maenchen-Helfen questioned the lack of anthropological and 
   ethnographic proximity between European Huns and Xiongnu.  
   
   Edward Arthur Thompson in 1948 in his monograph on the Huns denies the 
   continuity of European Huns from Xiongnu.

2. There is no convincing evidence that the language of European Huns(and Bulgars) was Turkic, only 33 personal names have survived (

3.There are academic sources stating the connections: Utrigurs-> Yuezhi, Vokil-> Yuezhi^[12][13][14]

Edwin G. Pulleyblank and many modern Bulgarian scholars identify the Bulgar Utigurs as one of the tribes of the Yuezhi.^{[15][16] [17]}

4. There are research papers showing that in modern Bulgarian language there are many Tocharian words. Yuezhi were Thocarian tribes and they spoke Tocharian language.^[18]

5. The genetic tests show that paternal ancestry between the Bulgarians and the Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations either did not exist or was negligible.

6. There are archaeological excavations of necropolises in northern Bulgaria and strikingly similar necropolises in Kazakhstan dated from 1 century BC till 3 century AD when Yuezhi lived there. ^{[19] [20] [21]} Also on the right bank of the river Amu Darya, near the rock complexes Kara-Tyube and Chelpik was found the sign of Dulo- Upsilon "|Y|".^[22]

Summing the information from these 7 points( including the data about artificial cranial deformation) - linguistic, archaeological, academic - show that:

   European Huns (and Bulgars) originate from the pre-Turkic Indo-European   
   population from northern China and particularly from the people known to
   the Chinese as Yuezhi. During their movement (from 2 BC till 4 AD) to
   Europe they were influenced by different groups of people, especially   
   Turkic and Iranian groups.   

Instead of using phrases as "Turkic extraction" and "Turkicized Sarmatians" it is much better to use the the real names of these people because they are known actually - Yuezhi and Wusuns. To what extent the language was Turkic is difficult to say - it was a mixture of Tocharian, Turkic and Iranian languages. There is a research paper explaining this: " Was the Tocharian language really Tocharian?"

About Dulo clan article. I would suggest:

1. About the article intro - to remove the phrase "Western Turks" - it is not true. Western Turks are much later phenomenon. We could restate it with " Early Turks".

2. About the article intro - to remove the statement " they were claiming Attilid descend". This is knot known - some historians think so, some( in fact most) think they were descendants of Attila.

3. To include that Dulo was the ruling dynasty of the Utigur Huns - this is true, and that Utigurs are identified by Zuev and Pulleyblank as one of the tribes of Yuezhi. The name Yuezhi means " Moon clan". This is the explanation why Turks from Turkey have Moon on their flag - they incorporated that part of Wusuns and Yuezhi who didn't move to Europe. That part became their ruling dynasty Ashina, which is Tocharian word for clear, pale blue - Yasna. That's why they call themselves "sky Turks". This is the historical truth. Bulgars and Ashina Turks have common ancestors - Tochars.

4. To remove completely the last sentence from the section origin:

" Burmov, Peter B. Golden, Gyula Németh and Panos Sophoulis concluded that claiming of Attilid descent shows the intermingling of European Huns elements with newly arrived Oğuric Turkic groups, as the number of evidence of linguistic, ethnographic and socio-political nature show that Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples."(4 books cited here)

nowhere in the cited 4 books there is such conclusion - that " Bulgars belonged to the group of Turkic peoples" - where, which line? Also, this sentence is illogical - claiming Attilid descend shows....they were Turks. Why? This is completely Crovata's own conclusion. What is the implication here - that Attila was Turk or what ?

5. To move the information for the historical rulers of the clan into articles introduction - it is well documented information and the reader will read what is sure for these rulers. This information belongs to the article's intro, not Research History.

6. To include back the information about the Martenica - there are archaeological evidences that such adorments were used in Tarim basin and central Asia and they were brought to the Balkan peninsula by the Huns(Bulgars). PavelStaykov (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm requesting a formal

I started drafting this request at my sandbox, writing a large chunk of it and saving it under a hidden note to take a nap for a couple of hours. I guess Annvarie saw my draft, through flicking through my contributions or other means, based on their next edit summary, another revert of mine, saved with the most pageant-y edit summary I've seen since creating an account here: "I don't consider editing a competition. I follow guidelines and base my edits on samples provided. That said, I reverted this edit based on WP:Text formatting & the sample table on WP:Discog style." something extremely polarizing from the usual blank summary or occasional summary CAPITALIZING buzz words like GUIDELINES or POLICIES to REALLY GET ACROSS THE MESSAGE that they know what they're TALKING ABOUT. On the intuition Annvarie saw my sandbox and found out about my plans to request an IBAN, I tried one last time to extend the old olive branch, and ask to work through issues, stylistic differences, and any other conflicts we had. This was, as I predicted, met with a nice lengthy paragraph on how Annvarie only makes THESE EDITS because they're following STRICT GUIDELINES that I evidently don't, and I'm a liar for insinuating they revert all my edits. While I never actually accused Annvarie of reverting all my edits, here's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 reversions Annvarie has made to things I've contributed to the article, some with good reason as they unknowingly violated certain policies/guidelines, but a large majority just due to personal disagreement.

Admittedly, I have assumed bad faith in certain instances, which I hold my hands up to, but honestly, can anyone blame me for doing so? I just want to get this out of my hair at last because honestly, I'm so

Comment it is clear that Annvarie is a WP:SPA see edit counter even in comparison to Azealia911 also demonstrated in edit counter results but this is mentioned just for context.

Personally I do not think that Ibans can ever work in situations in which editors work on the same content. I also have little knowledge of discography related issues and think that it may be worth pinging editors that have contributed to a relevant article, TP or Wikiproject to comment. However, having read through report related texts I think that issues of WP:OWN probably apply. A number of the edits and reversions seem to be about issues that didn't seem to me to have been of great consequence and I think that problems with the interactions may develop from problems arising from the actual edits. Issues here also relate to WP:AFG and WP:CIVIL.

Perhaps a topic ban on one or both editors would be appropriate. The length of such a ban may better be decided by editors who better know the topic but even a very short ban would get something on record so that if there was recurrence in behaviour then platform would be provided for further steps to be taken. Something needs to be done to better promote collaborative editing here. GregKaye 09:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think an interaction ban would be all bad, at least for a trial run for a couple of weeks or-so, to see how it plays out. After which time, if the article history then starts re-clogging up with constant action-revert-action-revert like it is now, we could re-discuss a longer or permanent interaction ban. The only con of the trial IBAN would be a possible reversion of all edits made during the trial with the excuse of "The IBAN's over, I can edit how I like"

I'd respectfully oppose a topic ban, I don't think that would be fair on Annvarie, who you aforementioned is a SPA, considering a topic ban on Nicki Minaj would leave them with no pages to edit, with them having only edited Mianj-related articles. But by the same token, I don't think it'd be fair on myself either, considering topic bans aim to reduce disruptive edits, which I personally don't think I've made on the article.

I'm pinging Kww, an admin who dabbles with the page. Don't really know who else to alert to be honest. Azealia911 _talk 12:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to issue either a topic ban or an interaction ban. Yes, I've noticed the two of you, and I think it's remarkable how petty both of you can be. Changing small text from 85% to 90%, and then edit warring over it? I'm more inclined to ban both of you from making purely cosmetic changes to discography articles, so that you stand a chance of learning how to interact over content.—Kww(talk) 13:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww The change you reference was nothing cosmetic, not on the main view of the article anyway. {{small|Insert text}} sets at 85%, and was a way of decreasing mess to the array of <span style="font-size:85%;">Insert text<span> I have no idea where you got 90% from. But really, a discography topic ban? That seems grossly unfair to both parties, rendering Annvarie unable to edit their primary edited page, which potentially leads to them just leaving the project all together, and unfair on myself, especially as I'm in the middle of a FLC, and responding to comments could get me reported. Azealia911 _talk 13:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't suggest a discography topic ban: I suggested a ban on making cosmetic changes to discographies. —Kww(talk) 13:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

What would that cover exactly? Could you give a few examples, relating to previous conflicts between myself and Annvarie? Sorry, it seems a tad vague, and could still cause problems at my FLC upon certain suggestions. Would it also just be NM discography? I edit many other discographies without issue from other editors. Azealia911 _talk 13:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm about to go to work for the day. Let me mull it over.—Kww(talk) 14:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing Azealia911 _talk 14:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (Non-administrator comment) I agree there is edit warring going on over some silly things, but in my few interactions with
  YO
  😜 09:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've placed a notice on Annvarie's talkpage, warning her that if she doesn't make comments here, I will place sanctions without her input. Let's leave this open a bit longer and give her a chance to respond.—Kww(talk) 14:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment First of all, I don't understand how my edit count translates to me making only reverts. I don't spend alot of my time on the internet so I when I do I edit on that discography article since I have a large interest in Nicki Minaj. I obviously don't consider myself an owner of the article, and my contributions to it are mostly chart/sales updates and new music additions. In my opinion, Azealia911 is overreacting since when I do revert their edit it's usually constructive and as they stated above, they took ownership of some of their mistakes. I take ownership for some of my wrong edits as well, but I don't make a big deal about my edits being reverted as long as its with good reason. When we have disagreements, we have third party involvements on the talk page and I stick with the consensus (Isn't this what Wikipedia advises it editors). To say I revert all their edits is absurd since I've reverted less than a quarter of their total edits to the page. I relation to responding to their sandbox (as implied above), we have had discussions on my talk page before in which we discussed this same topic. I can't believe I'm being accused of violating another editor when Azealia911 has repeatedly used foul language on MY talk page in simple discussions. To be honest, I don't know how to fix this supposed "issue" since I believe all my reverts (when necessary) are warranted but I have been a very constructive editor on that aricle.Annvarie (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry it took me a while to reply, I don't have this page on watch as it changes every few seconds. The ownership that was pointed out by a couple of editors, which I originally didn't consider at all but looking at some of the disputes has become somewhat frivolous to me, is the issue of you not letting edits "pass" for lack of a better phrase. Things like the chart name change, text size template changer (which after thinking about it, isn't stopped by the guideline you pointed out) could all have gone without you doing anything in return, yet your editing style to the page gives off a patroller-type style. This style is also backed up by your apparent tracking of my contributions and that edit summary, which was what really lead me to open this up. And as for the foul language accusation on your talk page, the only minor-obscene thing I've ever written there is the phrase "horseshit", which I apologise for if you really took it to heart. Other than that, I used the word "fucking" but it wasn't directed at you in any way, not that cussing's considered a

WP:Personal attacks anyway. At this point, I have no idea what would be the best cause of action, as long as you stop reverting almost every damn stylistic edit to that page that I make. Azealia911 _talk

22:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This isnt a bot so not sure why they would be blocked as a malfunctioning bot. Amortias (T)(C) 18:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The

books

} 23:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It was more of a it isnt malfunctioning but what it was set out to do wasnt constructive. Amortias (T)(C) 12:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Support; it's disruptive behavior and I've also complained at their userpage.

Fgnievinski (talk

) 00:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• If there's a problem then xyr AWB access should be revoked. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• User hasn't edited in almost 24 hours. Give them a chance to respond. If they start up again without responding, I'll yank the AWB. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
• What's the problem with [48]? It looks like a constructive change IMHO (switching a project template to a correctly more specific template). Maybe not something I'd bother to make myself, clearly not one you'd make, but that's no reason to prevent Dthomsen8 if they wish to do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

See

books

} 15:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

More obviously, [49]. WP Journals is, I'm surprised to find, a redirect to a WP Academic Journals. As such, then yes, NOTBROKEN would apply. Not that I'd seek a block over it though.

I would also note the we have a vast amount of pointless cosmetic and sub-cosmetic (invisible code-only whitespace stripping) 'bot and script editing and any challenge to chat gets seen as hostile edit-warring. We have far worse things than Dthomsen8 to worry about (or not). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

As the editor being discussed, I decided to sleep on the question and meanwhile do no edits at all. I have decided that I will stop using AWB for WikiProject changes, but I will note that many of the updates were adding WikiProject templates for other projects such as subjects and countries of Academic Journals. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered response. Have you read the COSMETICBOT policy linked above and are you happy to abide by it? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not WikiProject changes in general, the problem is doing purely cosmetic edits that clutter watchlists for no good reason. It's entirely fine to do cosmetic changes like {{

books

} 17:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that the cosmetic edits are annoying: they uselessly increase the amount of diffs that the humans maintaining the articles have to examine, and the size of the article's edit history. Sometimes they also try to impose the bot operator's editorial choices on the article (changing one template to another when both are valid) though I don't know if that's happened here. So I'd support the request that these edits stop--thanks. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• I don't really see these as problematic or even cosmetic edits. Project templates on talk pages are not wiki links in articlespace, the intended object of
  wp:BRINT is closer, but even that isn't appropriate. These talk pages have little content, and few watchers. The edits are therefore not cluttering many watch lists, nor extending huge page histories. They remove hidden redirections, avoid Easter eggs, improve the utility of what links here and improve the category allocations, so that academic journals are less likely to be conflated with journals in the sense of newsmagazines and the like. Would we prefer that the edits include a token talk page post to meet some wiki-legalistic constraint that serves to impede good work? LeadSongDog come howl!
  21:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)