Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

User:DeAllenWeten

I have contacted this user seven times with no response, see User talk:DeAllenWeten, especially User talk:DeAllenWeten#Sources. The messages were about creating articles with big issues, mainly that they were unreferenced. Another editor also contacted them about adding unsourced content. They have only ever responded to one talk page message although they have been editing for a year.

I have directed them towards WP:Communication is required, WP:BURDEN and WP:V, but they won't respond or address the issues. Boleyn (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

DeAllenWeten is continuing to edit but not respond or comment here. Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It's been several days now, where DeAllenWeten is editing but won't engage. I think it's time to move to an indef block. Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I've had a look, and I understand your frustration at the lack of response, however, I'm not seeing a significant problem with their editing. The user has created several articles, most of which have been reviewed and accepted (only one page creation was not acceptable this year, compared to over 30 which have been accepted0. Errors seem minor and varied - sometimes the article is sourced, but doesn't have categories, or has a source, but it's not reliable - such as IMDB. Creating imperfect articles is not grounds for blocking - see WP:PERFECTION. While it is helpful if editors do as much as possible, simply adding content to articles is acceptable, even when the content is unsourced and involves a living person. We only immediately remove unsourced information about living people when that information is likely to be challenged - see WP:BLPSOURCE. Chris troutman's response here, where he cites the information that DeAllenWeten added is the way to go. If someone is finding a particular user's way of editing to be irksome, sometimes the best response is to ignore it, and concentrate on other ways to improve Wikipedia. The stress involved in trying to deal with it is often not worth it. I don't think we're at formal warning stage, however I'll leave a note for DeAllenWeten, stressing that when editors express concerns about someone's editing that we either expect to see an improvement, or an explanation. SilkTork (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with not being perfect. After being messaged several times about not adding references, the editor continued to create articles like 2018 PSAC Football Championship Game, with no references or external links, reliable or otherwise. Refusing to communicate with editors expressing concerns is grounds for a block also. Some of these concerning articles are also blps, with no clear references of any sort, just external links to unreliable sources like imdb. Making this error is fine, but refusing to discuss it and continuing to create similar articles is disruptive. Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I have just issued a level 4 warning to DeAllenWeten for not citing sources, as I had previously issued a level 3 warning for the same thing. I have received no communication from DeAllenWeten nor any indication that the warnings were understood or that editing patterns would change. I don't think any good comes from tolerating this behavior. I am not in the habit of repeatedly cleaning up after other editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

DeAllen Weten has had over a week, has continued editing and clearly doesn't intend to respond here or on their talk page. I think we need to decide what action is appropriate here. I agree with Chris' comments above, that no good comes from tolerating this behaviour, and warnings and several attempts at discussions have had no effect. An indef block (which is not necessarily forever) will force the editor to communicate or use their time elsewhere. Boleyn (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Long-term disruptive editing by LoveVanPersie

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

Hello. There's a serious problem with User:LoveVanPersie, who keeps adding incorrect IPA transcriptions to Wikipedia articles (there are about 50 wrong transcriptions that I've fixed in the last four months + some that I fixed back in August/September). He's been warned multiple times not to do that and he just ignores that. This is clearly an issue of WP:COMPETENCE and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He used to tell me that he's 'truly grateful' for all the corrections I'd make (I know, I should've reported him weeks ago) and then go on making the same mistakes.

For previous reports/discussions, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics/Archive_12#Broad_IPA_Edits and Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_130#LoveVanPersie's_transcriptions. In the second discussion it becomes clear that he can't really read relevant literature to improve his knowledge of phonetics/phonology because his English is too poor. He's relying on other users to clean up after him (mostly me) and teach him phonetics/phonology for free (mostly me).

Bear in mind that this list is far from complete and it could be just the tip of the iceberg. I'm afraid that is precisely the case.

Spanish

[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], [30], [31]

• Having serious problems with identifying stressed syllables and either incorrectly guessing them or mishearing them (12x);
  • In these edits the transcription is sourced but it's still wrong: [32], [33]
  • These edits ([34], [35]) are further evidence that he's unable to consistently identify stressed syllables. He added correct IPA and then made it incorrect by misplacing the stress mark.
• Mistranscribing words with irregular/adopted foreign pronunciation (5x or more, I'm not sure how to count them);
• Lack of awareness of phonotactics, which caused him to consider /st/ and similar syllable onsets permissible and to think that words can end with [m] in isolation just because the word-final consonant is spelled ⟨m⟩ (3x);
• Mistaking ordinary Spanish letters for IPA symbols (3x);
• Mistranscribing the velar nasal [ŋ] as if it were alveolar [n] (2x);
• Typos (2x);
• Guessing the IPA (1x);
• Mistranscribing the tap [ɾ] as if it were trilled [r] (1x);
• Mistranscribing the semivowel [w] as a full vowel [u] (1x);
• Mistranscribing word-final [s] as [z], an allophone that can only ever occur immediately before voiced consonants (1x);
• Mistranscribing words with regular pronunciation as if they had an irregular pronunciation (1x).

Slovak

[36] (this one was discussed on my talk page), [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]

• Not knowing the rhytmic rule, which says that no more than one long vowel can occur within one word (3x);
• Guessing the IPA (2x);
• Copying and pasting IPA from [43] to [44] without checking it's correctness (it was seriously incorrect as [r̝] occurs in Czech, not Slovak. In fact, the absence of that sound is one of the defining characteristics of most Slovak dialects.);
• Changing [ɲ] to [n] just because he thought that it sounds more like the latter (even if it does, the correct transcription is still [ɲ]) (1x);
• Mistranscribing words with irregular/adopted foreign pronunciation (1x).

Serbo-Croatian

[45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]

• Writing [v] and [ʋ] in the same transcription and getting them wrong anyway (1x);
• Labelling a latin spelling of a surname as an IPA transcription (1x);
• Typos (3x);
• Mistranscribing the syllabic trill [r̩] as if it were non-syllabic [r] (1x);
• Mistranscribing the postalveolar [ʒ] as dental [z] (1x).

English

[53], [54]

• Thinking that just because a surname is spelled one way it means that all people pronounce the same (and neither of those guys pronounce it /ɡuˈtʃiːoʊni/!) (2x);
• Mistranscribing a surname (1x);
• Changing a correct transcription to an incorrect one (1x).

Dutch

[55]

• Mistaking a long unstressed vowel for a stressed one;
• Mistranscribing a long [yː] as short [y], which is an impossible pronunciation before /r/.

French

[56]

• Mistranscribing the open vowel [ɑ̃] as if it were mid *[ɔ̃]. He probably just copy-pasted that transcription from Florian (name) without checking it (it's wrong).

German

[57]

• Changing the IPA from correct to completely incorrect. The transcription is so incorrect that you can wonder whether he posted it on purpose.

Polish

[58]

• In this edit, he added the transcription of Kuba to the existing transcription of Jakub Błaszczykowski and didn't change the final consonant of Jakub from voiced to voiceless. This produced a seriously incorrect transcription that no native speaker would be able to read without making an effort and without sounding strange.

Slovene

[59]

• Not an IPA issue, but he called Simonović a Slovene surname. It isn't - it's a foreign (Serbo-Croatian) surname used by some Slovenes. Native Slovene names use ⟨č⟩ instead of ⟨ć⟩, reflecting the fact that Standard Slovene has only one voiceless postalveolar affricate (/tʃ/).

To his defense, he does seem to be learning and he now knows that e.g. Spanish words can't begin with /s/ + stop or that Slovak words can't have more than one long vowel. But what good is that if he keeps making tons of other mistakes every month?

Also to his defense, most of his Serbo-Croatian transcriptions are spot-on.

Once again, I apologize for not reporting him sooner, which I should've done.

Pinging @Adam Bishop, Aeusoes1, Medeis, Nardog, Nihlus, and No such user: who might be interested in this. Mr KEBAB (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Sheesh, KEBAB.

-EEng

@EEng: Can you elaborate? I know that this is a lot to analyze, but it needs to be resolved. I don't want to clean up after LVP anymore. Mr KEBAB (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Your post will take time to digest. OK, seriously, it does seem there's a problem here. However, I'm bound to say that I am seriously, seriously skeptical of the usefulness of IPA pronunciations anyway, since you could fit the people who understand them in a phonebooth. If anything, they should go in a footnote, not clutter up the first few words of each article. But that's not, of course, what this thread is about. EEng 03:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

EEng, our article Electrical engineering does not have any IPA in the lead. Perhaps we should make that a general policy, along with IAR. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: See WP:PRON. Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Personally I find IPA transcriptions useful, at least for languages I already know...but anyway that's besides the point. We were speculating on the Reference Desk that LoveVanPersie is actually the banned Fête (talk · contribs), although maybe they are just coincidentally similar. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

ə foʊn buːθ. Apparently I could be fit in there.

I am astonished that User:EEng missed the opportunity to post this.

@EEng: You may as well argue that musical notation shouldn't be included in articles about music because most readers can't read music, or that the output of the various Template:Math templates shouldn't be used on mathematics articles because most readers can't understand the formulas used in, say, differential calculus. I sure as hell can't.

IPA is to linguistics as the periodic table is to chemistry.

That said, IPA transcriptions should be like any other entry, not just personal opinion but backed up by references from reliable sources, and I agree there is an ongoing issue here. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)--Shirt58 (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I fully support the use of IPA in linguistics articles, just as I support the use of math notation in math articles and chemical notation in chemistry articles. Outside of such articles, these specialized notations should be used with discretion, not plastered everywhere the way IPA is. For example, the article on Entecavir doesn't start out Entecavir (C₁₂H₁₅N₅O₃), sold under the brand name Baraclude... The chemical formula belongs in an infobox or footnote, not underfoot right at the start of the article, and the same principle should be applied to pronunciations. EEng 14:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Shirt58 that IPA transcriptions should be referenced. An ordinary editor who has often been confronted by unverifiable changes in them.SovalValtos (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I notified LoveVanPersie of this incident. Jip Orlando (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

No harm in that but just to let people know, LVP was notified by Mr KEBAB, just not with a standard template or at the bottom [60] Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Kebab, for being so patient while the community catches up to this issue. You've put in a lot of work in tracking LVP's disruption and cleaning up after him/her.

Quite a few of these look like LVP meant to put a correct transcription but transposed letters, like he/she couldn't be bothered to check before hitting submit. I don't get what LVP's endgame is here. If s/he truly wants to help the project, adding sloppy transcriptions is not helpful. I'm particularly troubled by the mistakes with Spanish transcriptions, since Spanish has a very transparent orthography and transcriptions should be obvious to someone, especially after months of practice and feedback from other editors. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Since he's aware of this discussion and continues to put IPA into the articles despite that (I've already caught him misidentifying stress in two words - see [61] and [62]), I think it's safe to assume that he just doesn't care. Wikipedia is a personal blog to him. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Bump (more incorrect transcriptions: [63], [64], [65], [66]). Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I have a slightly informed hypothesis (not saying it's likely, just that the likelihood is enough above zero that I'll mention it) that the purpose of LVP's project is to benefit various data mining operations that use Wikipedia as a knowledge corpus, and that someone is paying him to do this. The intended consumers don't care much about the error rate as long as the info is mostly right. They should really be working with Wikidata but apparently Wikidata's content policies are not to their liking. IMHO an encyclopedia is supposed to be a reference work made for use by humans, so I wouldn't tolerate this. I'd support an immediate stern warning, followed by a block if the problem continues. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually I better look into the contribs some more before giving much credence to the above. I can't do that now but will maybe try tomorrow. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

In reference to this discussion there is also another user who is adding unsourced IPA in football articles. It's blocked User:HankMoodyTZ, who is evading his block from multiple IP ranges Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HankMoodyTZ. Example of his edits:[67]--Oleola (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Oleola: interesting that the IPs appear to be based in Bosnia, and a lot of LVP's edits are related to Serbia/Croatia etc. HankMoodyTZ was blocked in February 2018; LVP, while editing before then, certainly increased their edits that same month. I wonder if they are a sock/meat puppet... GiantSnowman 10:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

HankMoodyTZ noticed LoveVanPersie's edits and left him a message in February[68]. Then HankMoodyTZ started to change IPA's added by LoveVanPersie[69]. So I don't think that they are connected.--Oleola (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Please see #Topic ban proposal - LoveVanPersie below. GiantSnowman 10:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS)'s editing of medical and anatomy articles

Let me start by stating that although Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs) and I have a tempestuous history, as seen here, here and here, and she began editing medical and anatomy articles because of me (as that history shows), this report is not about that. This report is about about our health articles being some of our most important articles and Barbara (WVS) having repeatedly been a detriment to these articles. The fact that she is a part of WP:Visiting Scholar (although she's not a scholar) makes it even more essential that she not be a detriment to our health articles or topics (some of which she creates) because students are sometimes referred to her or look to her edits to learn. We cannot have editors learning and taking on this style of irresponsible and error-proned editing. Below are examples of Barbara (WVS)'s editing, from most serious to least serious, that really do show that more competence is required to edit in these areas. It also shows that even when challenged on errors, it is common for Barbara (WVS) to stick to her guns and insist that she is correct. Also keep in mind that our anatomy articles fall under "medical" as well.

Problematic editing by Barbara (WVS) at anatomy and medical articles.

As seen at Talk:Vulva/Archive 4, Barbara (WVS) added that the anus is a part of the vulva and stubbornly insisted that it is a part of vulva. She got defensive when others (me included) challenged her on that assertion. It took several editors pointing out that she was wrong just to get her to stop pushing content in this regard. She refused to accept or acknowledge that she was wrong. At the List of vaginal tumors article, Barbara (WVS) heavily used a reference that was a book on domestic animals before being pointed to this error. The List of vaginal tumors article is mostly about humans. Simply paying better attention to the source she was using could have prevented this error. As seen here, despite a number of reliable sources (and the literature at large) stating otherwise, Barbara (WVS) stubbornly insisted on having the Vagina article state that the vaginal epithelium is keratinized. She became defensive, stating, "All I can say is that the relatively recent review article I have states that the top epethelial layer is keratinized. [...]. I can't see how anyone else would even want to comment on this. This is not a hill to die on, at least not for me." I questioned whether or not Barbara (WVS) was misinterpreting the source, given that she had misinterpreted the vulva and anus matter, and other things. An editor eventually made it clear that she was misinterpreting the source. As seen here, Barbara (WVS) removed "mucous membrane," stating, "The vaginal epithelium is not a mucous membrane. See Vaginal epithelium for references." By contrast, as that talk page section shows, many reliable sources state that the vagina is lined with a mucous membrane or they state "vaginal mucosa." Many, but not all, mucous membranes secrete mucus. Judging by Vaginal epithelium#Mucous, it was clear that Barbara (WVS) confused mucous membrane with mucous gland. As seen here, Barbara (WVS) proposed to have the Persistent genital arousal disorder article deleted. She did this without doing a WP:BEFORE job. And she took a hatchet to the article despite what WP:Preserve makes clear. All it took was some looking on Google Books, and the article was significantly improved/saved. As seen here, Barbara (WVS) recently proposed content for the Vagina article that had a host of problems. And this is not the first time she has proposed content for that article in this way. Because of the issues pointed out on the matter, editors considered having, or asked that, Barbara (WVS) step away from editing the article. Do see SilkTork's response in particular. He stated, in part, "some of the edits by Barbara that I see concern me as they may be either removing correct information or inserting dubious or incorrect material. While in the totally of Barbara's edits there is some positive, the time taken to examine her edits to check what she has done, and to correct her mistakes, and to discuss this with her, is disproportionate to the benefits she is able to bring. My feeling at this stage is that the article would progress better without her presence." Barbara (WVS) response was to state "this was a very 'crappy' draft to submit for consideration. I could give all sorts of excuses but will not." She then listed a bullet-point response. As seen here, Barbara (WVS) removed valuable content from the Vaginoplasty article and did not replace it despite being pointed to the WP:Preserve policy. I noted to her that this material was important because those who get the surgery to construct a vagina, meaning to create an entire vagina, need to dilate the vagina. Solid sources in the section show this. As seen here at Talk:Nipple, Barbara (WVS) stubbornly refused to listen on matters regarding purported orgasms from breast/nipple stimulation. She got defensive and ended up stating, "ok....umm wow. You spend too much time on talk pages. It takes me ten minutes to go through your essay. I'm not even going to read them any more. I find your edit summaries more useful. You have got to relax a bit. Both of us could probably bring this article to good status if you would like." Guidelines and sources were provided showing why there were issues with Barbara (WVS)'s edits. As seen here at Talk:Endometriosis, Barbara (WVS) again neglected WP:Preserve and misapplied WP:MEDDATE, as she has a number of times before. References and content she removed was restored by another editor. As seen here, Barbara (WVS) insisted that sourced material was unsourced. As seen here, Barbara (WVS) insisted that we must use WP:PAYWALL sources because they are of higher quality, and because "the whole purpose of the Visiting Scholar program is to provide access to content that is not available through Google Books. Links to the University of Pittsburgh Library holdings would be useless in a reference." This was challenged by editors (me included) on the talk page and contradicted by a Wiki Education Foundation editor.

Now I understand that people make mistakes, but the mistakes by Barbara (WVS) are too often and sometimes too serious to reasonably allow her to continue to edit medical and anatomy articles. The above are just examples. There is also the fact that Barbara (WVS) has a tendency to defend her mistakes as correct. Again, these our health articles. So I ask that the community consider restricting editing her of these topics indefinitely. I am asking for an indefinite topic ban, broadly construed. She has recently banned herself from editing the Vagina article, but this is not enough since that is just one article and (as stated there) she does not see a pattern in her problematic editing and has plans to return to that article after six months. The same issues will be happening with other articles, and with that article once she returns to it. We should not continue to allow an editor with issues such as these to continue to edit in these fields simply because she is with the Visiting Scholar program and creates a lot of medical articles. How many of these articles have serious issues? Pinging Jytdog, Rivertorch, SilkTork, Tom (LT), Johnuniq and SandyGeorgia, who have all expressed concerns about Barbara (WVS) editing these areas. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Doc_James, as he might want to say something as well. Classicwiki (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Gandydancer who edits in similar areas. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I manage the Visiting Scholars program for Wiki Education. As such, I have a COI with regards to Barbara's edits as a Visiting Scholar. Here are a few clarifying comments you can take as you will:

• The Visiting Scholars program aims to support Wikipedians by providing access to academic resources through a university library. The comment that "she's not a scholar," presumably a comparison to the academic definition of 'scholar', misunderstands the purpose of the program. Participation in the program shouldn't affect editing habits except to equip editors with more research resources.
• Regarding the last bulletpoint (use of paywalled sources), which refers to something I said: When the Visiting Scholars program began, many of the goals/responsibilities of the Scholars were left up to the institutional sponsors to decide. We had not yet developed our current best practices. Back then, part of the way the program was presented to sponsors was to talk about how it could increase traffic to their collections. That doesn't happen anymore. We changed the way we engage with sponsors around the same time Barbara was getting involved. Since then, this is the program in a nutshell: "a Wikipedian who wants to contribute to a particular topic area receives a university login and keeps track of the articles they improve along the way." I.e. editing as normal, with access to better sources, and no responsibility to use them or link to them in any particular way. So I would believe it if Barbara felt like she was supposed to do just that, and I apologize to her and to the community for not doing more to ensure the expectations of early program participants complied with community expectations and standards.
• Regarding "students are sometimes referred to her" - This is untrue. We do not refer students to Visiting Scholars, as we have Wikipedians on staff who support students. Recently, I did connect a Wikipedia Fellow (an academic, not a student) interested in women's health topics to Barbara, but that is the only instance.
• Moving on to more general comments about this proposal: First, pinging only people likely to agree with you in an ANI report strikes me as problematic. Given this the topic of this thread is about a topic ban rather than user conduct issues, it seems more appropriate to ping all editors active on those pages and/or WikiProject Women's Health.
• Most to the point: The list above indeed includes some examples of when Barbara has been wrong. It gives an example like list of vaginal tumors, pointing to Barbara's overuse of a problematic reference. But anyone who doesn't click through to the page before judging on a topic ban wouldn't see that it was Barbara that created the page, with 33 references. The same is true for some others. Barbara has created and improved a huge number of medical articles. I would encourage any editor who intends to opine here to take a look through an Xtools report of her most edited articles to evaluate her general ability to contribute to the topic area in addition to looking at the list above. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

As Ryan suggested, I am pinging members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's Health. Doc James (already done), CFCF, Clayoquot, D.c.camero, FloNight, Fluffernutter, Foxtreetop, Hmlarson, Kaldari, Keilana, Little_pob, Michael_Goodyear, Mvolz, Netha Hussain, Thsmi002, and Whispyhistory. Classicwiki (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I have only had minimal interactions with this editor. She offered to help with Women's health but stated she did not understand the citation style. I offered to help her, but heard nothing more. A blanket ban seems a bit drastic. Do we know what her qualifications are? Is there a role for mentoring? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Ryan (Wiki Ed), the reason that I noted that Barbara (WVS) is not a scholar is so that editors here would know that she is not one. It was not about confusion on my part. I pinged editors who know of Barbara (WVS)'s problematic editing. Her problematic editing is what is under scrutiny here. Most of the editors I pinged have worked with her and/or tried to work with her. Tom (LT) in particular, who is our top anatomy editor, was indifferent to her until assessing a proposal she made at Talk:Vagina. If I was aware of all of the editors who see Barbara (WVS)'s editing as a net positive, I would have pinged them. But I am not aware of many or even a few who do, except for you. Furthermore, here at WP:ANI, pinging every editor of WikiProject Women's Health and/or WP:Med is not required. It also skews the matter because what one can wind up with is editors opposing to restrict Barbara (WVS)'s editing simply because they think she's nice, like her, and/or because she edits a lot of medical topics. It's well known that Barbara (WVS) is often polite. But politeness and editing/creating a lot of medical articles does not equate to competence. Plus, there are people who are a part of WikiProjects who are not on an official WikiProject list. I am a part of WP:Med, but I am not on a list there. Like SilkTork, who was also indifferent to Barbara (WVS) until assessing her problematic editing, I do not see that whatever benefits exist regarding Barbara (WVS)'s editing outweigh the negatives. SandyGeorgia was also indifferent to Barbara (WVS)'s editing until seeing her in action after she (SandyGeorgia) posted this section at WP:Med. And I made it very clear that Barbara (WVS) churning out medical article after medical article (a number of which are not needed and end up merged and/or should be merged) does not mean that she should continue to be allowed to edit in, and create articles for, these areas. If you are willing to put the Wiki Education Foundation above the accuracy and quality of our health articles, then I must disagree with you. I would rather have no article than an article potentially full of errors and sloppy editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn Can you succinctly provide a list of 1-5 links that you are labelling problematic editing? Hmlarson (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC) I've gone through the edits provided - and I'm not seeing many diffs - just your repeated talk page interactions with this editor, which seem fine and allow other editors to provide input to garner WP:CONCENSUS. Without knowing every detail of your previous interactions, I will say my first impressions with the way this is presented reads more like a smear campaign to me with very little stickiness. I agree with Michael Goodyear that a blanket ban is drastic. I also agree more attention needs to be paid to the fact that "Barbara has created and improved a huge number of medical articles" per Ryan (Wiki Ed). Hmlarson (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmlarson, is the list in the collapse box not enough? Do you think any of what I listed there is not problematic? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmlarson, no, not a smear campaign. Jytdog, Doc James and I have had to fix Barbara's errors and/or otherwise clean up after her a number of times. One article where Doc James has consistently corrected her is Cystocele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Doc is more content than some of us when it comes to fixing Barbara's content. Barbara edits some of the same areas that I edit in, and began editing these articles after interacting with me. Any diff and/or linked discussion involving me is merely because of that. But enough of the issues I linked to do show egregious errors and editors (sometimes me included) trying to explain to her that these are errors. The diffs are there in the talk page discussions. I'm sure that others can provide more diffs showing issues. Often, Barbara's initial response is to be defensive rather than listen. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• It may be helpful to clarify that some of the problematic edits were made with Barbara's personal account (User:Bfpage), not her WVS account (User:Barbara (WVS)). Since part of the complaint is that she has set a bad example to those following her semi-official(?) work, it would be helpful to show diffs from mistakes made while using her WVS account, or explain why it does not make a difference which account she uses. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Some of the examples definitely involve her Barbara (WVS) account. On her Barbara (WVS) user page, she notes the difference between the accounts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I will weigh in with my own observations:

1. Prior to this issue being raised, I had independently noticed some edits made to women's health articles by B that were of low quality, and this surprised me, enough so that I did briefly investigate B's user page and editing history because of this.
2. I was also surprised to see "scholar" there, so the point about it being slightly misleading I also agree with. I'm not sure if there are any practical concerns with this however.
3. Prior to this issue being raised, I had also independently noticed one of the initially pinged users egregiously attacking B for really no good reason at all in a talk page and found it a bit shocking.
4. Pursuant to #3, I observed that B did not back down. In my opinion, because in this issue they were correct, I had considered this a good quality. However, in reading what you posted above, it appears that this is common behaviour and is done every time regardless of whether B is in the wrong.
5. I concur with Ryan (Wiki Ed)'s observation that the addition of volumes of material is overall of a beneficial nature, because we have plenty of missing content in this project.

Although I agree that B sometimes demonstrates a lower level of competence in these areas than I would ideally like, on the other hand I believe that the community is still able to improve upon these new articles and that the addition of this content is overall, a benefit to our coverage. The key point is that these articles are fixable, and that they wouldn't exist without B. This would not be the case if the articles were not salvageable or if the articles' existence wasn't useful. Damaging articles that are already of high quality however is more worrisome, however, it seems like in these cases mentioned the issue was satisfactorily resolved (although this may be selection bias), albeit perhaps with more conflict than was necessary.

Since being notified of this, I have also looked at User:Barbara_(WVS)/articles_created and I was very excited to see what B had accomplished in a short amount of time. I especially liked seeing Template:Breastfeeding and Breastfeeding and medications as I had actually noticed that content in this area was not great a few years ago and never got around to doing it myself. I would be sad to see one of the very few editors adding needed content in these neglected areas be topic banned.

I agree that there are definitely some issues here, but I think a topic ban (on both accounts) is far too aggressive at this point in time. I fine with it if it was decided that B should edit with the Bfpage account on women's health topics instead of the Barabara (WVS) account. Mvolz (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Mvolz, in this discussion, it seems that some editors may be underestimating the effort and strain it puts on others to fix these kinds of errors, or to review Barabara (WVS)'s edits because of the errors they are likely to contain and to then have to fix and/or to discuss the matter unless we are to leave the errors in. If you have not yet done so, see what Tom (LT) and SilkTork recently stated. Part of the strain comes from Barabara (WVS) refusing to acknowledge that she is wrong. With Tom (LT), she recently acknowledged some faults, but that is not standard for her. As for creating new articles, there is no deadline. We don't need Barabara (WVS) to create all of these articles. And why should we allow errors to remain in an article even for a day? Are we saying that it's okay for Barabara (WVS) to edit with the lack of care she so often exhibits because the article will eventually be fixed? Errors can stay in articles for years. And as noted before, a lot of articles Barabara (WVS) creates are not needed and can fit in existing articles or be merged with them. See this discussion, where she notes that a number of her articles have been merged and that she "usually [...] can turn four sentences into a brand new article that has enough references to stand on its own." Thing is...she never takes WP:No page into consideration. I don't understand this "quantity over quality" viewpoint I am seeing right now. I could create a whole bunch of articles as well, but I actually care about the content I put out there. I'm not going to sloppily throw together an article with possible errors in them and hope that others fix/clean up the content for me. When I see Barbara (WVS) churning out these articles, I don't see that she actually cares about what she is adding. If she did, she would take the time to proofread all of it and ensure the accuracy of it. All I see is an editor more concerned about her article count (in order to look more prolific than she is) than someone who is actually passionate about any of this. How can an editor reasonably be passionate about content and not do their best to ensure the accuracy of the content? There's a reason that SilkTork, one of our most prolific reviewers, has been clear that although he is interested in working with Barbara (WVS), he does not want to work with her on a medical article because he does not trust her editing medical articles.

Also, regarding "noticed one of the initially pinged users egregiously attacking B for really no good reason at all in a talk page and found it a bit shocking," do you mean Jytdog? I ask because he is the only editor I pinged that has had a tempestuous history with Barbara (WVS). I haven't seen him attack her for no reason, though. If you mean me, I haven't attacked her for no reason either. Also, I would classify my interactions with her more as concerns than attacks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

To be brief, the more I look into Barbara's edits, the more concerned I am. I am concerned that

• Barbara has a lot of issues with verifiability, one of our core principles.
• Barbara uses close paraphrasing, and in an attempt to avoid this, alters facts
• A not insignificant portion of Barbara's edits are incorrect
• A number of other editors share these views.
• The time required to track and discuss Barbara's edits is great

Content addition is not an excuse, our information is reposted throughout the internet and our core mission is to be an encyclopedia, ie. give readers accurate an encyclopedic content that is verified. An editor that contributes lots of content has a higher burden to make sure that content is accurate. If it is not, it is just taking away the time of another content editor to track and fix said edits, or worse, disseminating wrong information. I would like to see:

1. A mentor appointed, to help Barbara and also to have someone supervise and monitor her edits
2. Barbara follow through with her commitment to check edits she has made over the last 6 months
3. A commitment to slower editing of articles, with the understanding that mainspace is for finalised content additions --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Addit.

• As an example, see the lead of List of vaginal tumors. This still contains close paraphrasing, and is so grossly incorrect that I think speaks to the gravity of this situation. "The terms mass and nodule are synonymous with tumor". "Vaginal cancers are malignant neoplasms that originate from vaginal epithelium,"; "Cancer that has spread from the colon, bladder, and stomach is far more common than cancer that originates in the vagina itself" (probably correct, included twice; but - not found in source??)
• Vaginal epithelium: For the sake of demonstration,

1. " Hafez ES, Kenemans P (2012-12-06). Atlas of Human Reproduction: By Scanning Electron Microscopy. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 1–6. ISBN 9789401181402." not on page 1-6.
2. USMLE Lecture notes is not a reliable source.
3. "The cells of the vaginal epithelium retain an usually high level of glycogen compared to other epithelial tissue in the body" is not present on p154 of stated reference
4. Where is anything related to "Vaginal epithelium forms transverse ridges or rugae that are most prominent in the lower third of the vagina. This structure of the epithelium results in an increased surface area that allows for stretching" in its supporting three references
5. Where is the claim to uniqueness or permeability in the two references for "This layer of epithelium is protective and its uppermost "?
6. Three references for "stratum spinosum is part of the parabasal layer". I can't find this in the first two references I can access?
7. Where is this claim "Intermediate cells make abundant glycogen and store it" in this source: "5 minute clinical consult"?
8. "Estrogen induces the intermediate and superficial cells to fill with glycogen" where is this in the sources? source 2 doesn't mention intermediate or superficial cells. Source 1 says estorgen stimulates cells to mature, which is characterised by filling with estrogen

I would like to ask some other medical editors to contribute here. These authoritative-looking sourced edits are not uncommonly both incorrect and incorrectly sourced. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC):::I would like to begin to respond to Tom (LT)

• Much of the content you use to demonstrate my problematic edits as being examples of close paraphrasing in the lead of the article List of vaginal tumors is in the public domain and published by the US govt with no copyright restrictions except for attribution.
• The content is not grossly incorrect. The terms mass, tumor, neoplasm, and nodule are synonyms or at least have significant overlap according to the National Cancer Institute:

“Tumor - An abnormal mass of tissue that results when cells divide more than they should or do not die when they should. Tumors may be benign (not cancer), or malignant (cancer). Also called neoplasm.” National Cancer Institute public domain content, no need to paraphrase.

“Mass - In medicine, a lump in the body. It may be caused by the abnormal growth of cells, a cyst, hormonal changes, or an immune reaction. A mass may be benign (not cancer) or malignant (cancer).” National Cancer Institute public domain content, no need to paraphrase.

“Nodule - A growth or lump that may be malignant (cancer) or benign (not cancer).” National Cancer Institute public domain content, no need to paraphrase

“Neoplasm - An abnormal mass of tissue that results when cells divide more than they should or do not die when they should. Neoplasms may be benign (not cancer), or malignant (cancer). Also called tumor.” National Cancer Institute, public domain content, no need to paraphrase.

• Vaginal cancers are malignant neoplasms that originate from vaginal epithelium.

“Carcinomas start in epithelial tissues.” Cancer Research UK

“About 70 of every 100 cases of vaginal cancer are squamous cell carcinomas. These cancers begin in the squamous cells that make up the epithelial lining of the vagina.” From the American Cancer Society

“Melanomas are tumors that arise from melanocytes or the pigment cells. A common form of melanoma [is foundin the]…lining of the urogenital tract, respiratory tract and the gastrointestinal tract. In 3% of healthy women, melanocytes can be found in the basal portion of the vaginal epidermis…”Primary Vaginal Melanoma, A Rare and Aggressive Entity. A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Barbara ✐  ✉ 11:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

After informing the editors on the talk page of the Vagina article that I was in the midst of some serious family and personal issues, which I would have preferred to communicate via email but was informed that was unacceptable, it may have been seen as an opportune time to appear here on ANI to level these 'charges'. This effectively removes me from significant participation in this discussion as the editors monitoring the talk page of the Vagina article have noted. I understand the reasoning behind initiating this discussion but question the timing. I'm not sure this figures into this discussion at all, but it might be possible to delay the closure of this discussion to accommodate the difficulties I am experiencing right not. If an administrator would like to contact me by email I would be happy to discuss this. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Your real-life circumstances were not taken into account because this is something that needed addressing now instead of months from now, when the recent stuff regarding the Vagina article and other stuff would be considered old news. It's not something that should simply have been restricted to the Vagina talk page. I don't see that we needed to hold off on this because you said you've had a death in the family. We don't know what is going on in your personal life. And I'm not stating that you are being dishonest, but this wouldn't be the first time that an editor has said that they are dealing with personal issues (including a death in the family) after their editing has been highlighted as problematic. I am dealing with significant health issues. It's yet another reason that I've wanted to work with SilkTork again and go ahead and get the Vagina article where it needs to be. But I don't want sympathy, and so I keep my real-life issues to myself. I didn't even express this to him. I understand that telling fellow editors can simply be about ensuring that they are more understanding of what is going on with an editor, but it's still something I usually keep to myself. As you know, SandyGeorgia is also going through health issues regarding her husband, but she still took the time to weigh in here. And the reason we know about her husband's health issues is, in part, because she cares about what we put into our medical articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

My condolences, Barbara. You only disclosed this information after emailing users involved and after I had expressed my concerns. In addition you are still making large amounts of edits. If this is a difficult time, it may be best to take a short wikibreak so that the stress of Wikipedia isn't contributing to what must already be a difficult period. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I share many of the concerns raised by Flyer22 Reborn, Tom (LT), and others. My experience with Barbara (WVS) stems entirely from my recent work to help prepare Vagina for GA review. I have noticed what appear to be competency issues, as well as behavioral issues, with her participation there. I am anything but an expert on the topic, so I don't feel comfortable commenting on the basic merit of her contributions, but I will say that more than a few of her edits have been hasty and poorly executed. If this happened only rarely, I'd be inclined to dismiss it as an aberration—everyone has off days, after all—but it has happened multiple times in the several weeks that I've been actively involved with the article.

When the problem edits have been brought to her attention, her responses have been less than ideal. While invariably remaining perfectly civil and often even friendly (for instance, she left an award on my talk page—a kind gesture), she tends to get quite defensive, insisting that she is acting in good faith even when no one has suggested anything to the contrary. She has also demonstrated a propensity for endorsing a consensus reached on the talk page but then making edits contrary to that consensus. And she has repeatedly alluded to more work needing to be done on the article and suggested that it will be a lengthy process, an approach which effectively puts any ideas of moving forward with the GA review in limbo; this seems quite unfair to editors such as Flyer who have shown enormous diligence in their work to improve the article and would clearly like to see it promoted and move on. Taken as a whole, such behaviors have caused considerable consternation among other editors and contributed to what has become an atmosphere on the talk page that for all its civility is best described as toxic. This needs to stop.

Most recently, at Talk:Vagina, Barbara (WVS) laid out two hypothetical scenarios about editors making errors. I'm not entirely sure what her point was, but I have to say that either scenario would indicate a major problem: whether an editor is making ten errors per month or only three, it's way too many, at least if we're talking about important articles about anatomical or medical topics. Such articles demand extra care, and on Vagina at least, Barbara hasn't shown that. Nobody expects perfection, but if one is repeatedly showing an inability or unwillingness to slow down and take great care before clicking on "Publish changes", then it would be better to avoid editing such articles entirely. I understand that she adds a lot of content on topics where our coverage may be skimpy, but I don't buy the argument that that somehow compensates for making careless mistakes; the seriousness of an error isn't mitigated by its relative infrequency or by any number of unproblematic edits made elsewhere. (Maybe the situation was different ten years ago, when WP was still something of a novelty and desperately lacking content, but now that we're invariably at the top of the search results and millions of readers are depending on us, accuracy must be prioritized over comprehensiveness.) Personally, if it were demonstrated that I was making repeated content or sourcing errors in a particular topic area—or indeed doing anything to needlessly cause serious concern among several of my fellow editors—I'd be inclined to back off and go do something else. I think it would be most helpful at this point if Barbara were to agree to desist from editing articles on medicine or anatomy. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 11:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Barbara pinged me about this discussion a few hours ago and I've just noticed it. I've been on a wikibreak for a little over a year but have now decided to step back into editing. I've never worked on content with Barbara but we do get on well and I'd be happy to take on mentorship if that would suit her and those above expressing concerns about her work. I'm well across Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines and have a lot of experience in medical content. I was a founding board member of WikiProject Med Foundation, and I'm probably more concerned about the accuracy of our medical content than most. (I'm signing off for the night now and should be back online in about ten hours.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Anthony. When I proposed my mentorship on the talk page of the Vagina article I was hoping you would be agreeable. Thank you for your help. I certainly agree that I will be able to better see my errors, admit my mistakes and move forward with your sound advice. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 23:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Since Anothonyhcole, a knowledgeable editor, has offered to mentor Barbara and because it does seem Barbara does produce good content alongside some bad judgements, I feel a topic ban is probably premature. I support mentorship under anthonyhcole and oppose, at this stage, a topic ban. If the mentorship does not resolve the problem then a topic ban could be revisited.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Not so fast! No one pinged Wikipedia:WikiProject Men's Health ... oops, never mind.

I was actually brought into this when this unnecessary and out-of-the-blue meanness occurred on my talk page. Seeing no context for that kind of post, it raised red flags, and I thought maybe it was being suggested that I needed to do some sock checking for You Know Who. After reviewing considerable edits from both of Barbara's accounts, the conclusion was no need for an SPI. There are behavioral and personality similarities, mostly that both are very thin-skinned and when they get defensive, talk discussion is derailed, but there are significant differences in editing style and competence.

I have been at a loss about what to do about this situation, because mentoring of the similar account never worked. I am also concerned about a double standard in restricting one medical editor, when equally dangerous and egregious editing has occurred in the last month on the prostate suite of articles by three male medical editors, who are generally held in high regard, and have not been called to task for a pattern of much-too-hurried and at times inaccurate editing. One editor reinstated outdated medical info after I replaced it with current information, with no explanation or discussion. I have pointed out these edits on article talk and my talk, and notice that we haven't heard from those editors in this discussion. I hope they are realizing that another medical editor is being called to task for exactly what they have done. Yes, Barbara deleted accurate text from prostate articles rather than tag text that needed better sourcing, but other editors have added worse text, outdated text, and left the articles with grammatical errors-- errors of the type that lead to more egregious inaccuracies in the articles than what Barbara did. Nonetheless, four wrongs don't make a right, and this situation needs a solution on its own merits.

I think Anthonyhcole would be an excellent mentor, and believe that to be a good route to go, but because we have been down the mentoring path (unsuccessfully) before with a similar editor, I suggest we impose a couple of conditions before jumping to a conclusion:

1. Something outlining when the Bfpage vs the Barbara account is to be used.
2. History of mentoring an editor with a similar behavioral profile shows that mentorship won't work without an acknowledgement from Barbara that her editing is a problem-- no excuses, no thin-skinned defense. She has to acknowledge the problem, and agree to go along with Anthonyhcole's mentorship.
3. Something about how to allow Flyer (who edits with competence) to pursue GA or FA without interference from these accounts.
4. Some way to address the unnecessary meanness aimed at Barbara I mentioned above should it occur agaiin-- that sort of behavior is spread all over medical editing, and Anthonyhcole is not an admin, so how will he be able to deal with that if it occurs?

With some conditions in place, I believe we can avoid losing an editor in an area where we have too few, and hopefully help Barbara edit well within her competency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

PS, because @SilkTork: was a mentor to the other editor I mention, I defer to his judgment and suggestions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Replying here directly to Sandy's comments above. Mentoring Mattisse was very demanding, and there were several of us doing it. Mentoring in this case would work better if Barbara herself wanted it rather than merely accepted it as a condition to allow her to continue editing medical articles. I would be happy to work with Barbara on non-medical articles, but only if she gave up editing on medical articles voluntarily. I think Barbara is already an asset to the project, and would be an even greater one if she applied herself positively to areas where she can work without conflict. If she continued to edit medical articles, with or without a mentor, I fear there would be continuing strife and non-productive problem solving, and the de-motivation of at least one of our known good medical contributors. SilkTork (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I thought you meant that it was Barbara who made the grammatical mistakes. That's another aspect of her editing. Either way, I agree that Anthonyhcole, who I'm familiar with, could be a great mentor. I'm unconvinced that mentoring would work in this case since Barbara's behavior and style of editing is her own and is something unlikely to change. It's not just verifiability we are concerned about, after all. But if that is what editors want to give a shot first instead of a topic ban or some other type of editing restriction, there isn't anything I can do about that. I was going to leave the idea for what type of an editing restriction to go with for someone else to suggest. For example, a temporary editing restriction with conditions. I wondered if requesting an indefinite topic ban might seem heavy-handed to some, but I was/am that concerned. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

There were so many grammatical errors left on the prostate articles, that I stopped trying to figure out which of the editors had introduced which errors, although I am fairly certain it was not only Barbara. I posted about just a few on talk, asking other (not Barbara) editors to please slow down and take more care with their edits. Yes, I see the problems with Barbara relative to Verifiability, and I saw that she deleted accurate content that only needed better sourcing. I wish I could say she was the only editor who was not demonstrating sufficient care with a topic (prostate cancer and screening) that will affect one in six men, but unfortunately, I have seen at least four medical editors making serious errors in that suite of articles. Who knew that women's health issues were more important on Wikipedia than men's? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• This is a subtle and delicate situation. When Flyer asked me if I was interested in doing a GA review of Vagina she alerted me to the tension on that article between herself and Barbara. My response was that I welcomed editing tension between two strong editors on such a complex article, as it generally encourages robust editing when editors have to argue for and justify their edits, so I wasn't concerned. I was a little unclear on Barbara's use of two accounts, and the use of WVS in the name of her Barbara account; however, the usage is for record keeping, as explained here.

I kept at a distance, then Barbara asked me to take a look. I didn't like what I saw from either Flyer or Barbara, as edit warring had occurred. We prefer talked through solutions to editing disagreements, especially between experienced editors. However, in this instance it was clear that Barbara had initiated the conflict by inserting substantial text against the consensus arrived at on the article talkpage. It was a surprisingly unwise move to make in the circumstances. I glanced at some of Barbara's recent edits, and noted this and this, which didn't strike me as helpful, and seemed to be oddly "pointy" in that it seemed as though Barbara was keen to discover errors in the article - yet in doing so, she was altering acceptable content and either replacing it with dubious content, or none at all. In short, it appeared that she was making mistakes, and making mistakes based not on attempting to improve the article, but on attempting to score points (as suggested by her edit summaries). It seemed to me that she was editing on the Vagina article just a little beyond her skill set, and was not behaving collegiately.

I asked a few medical editors to look into her contributions, and everyone had the same conclusion. Barbara is an enthusiastic and hard working editor who has access to sources, and who can be an asset to Wikipedia, but she doesn't always understand the sources she reads, and is often unable to put what she reads into a wider context. It was proposed during discussions that the matter be brought here, but I advised against that as she is not doing anything against Wikipedia policy, and her editing and behaviour problems are low key, and can be corrected, and she was engaging in discussions. My feeling was that any approach made here would be met with: "she wants to help, she can help, she just needs to be guided: give her time and see how it works out - perhaps try mentoring". The name Mattisse came to mind. Not that I thought Barbara and Mattisse are the same person, but more that they share the same behaviour pattern, and cause the same problems. Both were enthusiastic and hard-working contributors who could offer so much to the project; but both created a lot of stress and time-consumption for other editors. I am very familiar with the Mattisse connection as I was one of Mattisse's mentors and I have the same empathy for Barbara as I did for Mattisse.

I pondered if asking Barbara to stop editing on Vagina, and offering to help her edit elsewhere would solve the issue. She has created some decent articles which could be brought to GA standard. But I decided not to interfere so strongly, hoping instead that matters would be resolved on Vagina, especially after another talkpage consensus on how to edit the article seemed to have everyone's agreement. But then she did this (removed sourced content with another pointy comment that needed substantiating), and I began to wonder if it was time to tempt her away. So I made my offer, which she refused. I still hold out hope that she will see sense herself, and stop editing in an area where she creates stress for herself and others. I am concerned that, like Mattisse, Barbara brings unnecessary toxicity to Wikipedia, and wears out editors who are doing good work. I have huge respect for Flyer, and I know she suffers under such editing conditions. I am unclear through all the months of struggle what positive contributions Barbara has brought to the Vagina article, but they have come at a disproportionate cost, and I fear we are wearing out a very good contributor in Flyer. My preference would be for Barbara to accept that she is creating more problems than solutions at Vagina, and quite possibly at other medical articles, and to edit in other areas where there is no conflict, and where she can do some good. SilkTork (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This is all highly unfortunate for all. Anatomy should not really be that controversial. I approached this from a neutral point of view, and as one with training in conflict management. I took a look at the lead on List of vaginal tumors and was dismayed at the standard. I spent the morning trying to clean it up, but it requires far more than I have time for just now. So if that is representative, there is a problem. I still support mentoring but with feedback to the group as to whether it is showing any progress. Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio problems

In at least 5 times, spaced over a year, editors have picked up and reported to Barbara re. either copying or close paraphrasing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Diannaa in March 2017 (response: "I will be more careful") here.
• Doc James in December 2017 (response: "Yikes! I will remember that"). link
• Shalor (Wiki Ed) in February 2018 (response: "I will... figure out what I did wrong"). User_talk:Barbara_(WVS)#Vaginal_support_structures
• Diannaa again in February 2018, same link as above
• Me in March 2018 at Talk:Vagina proposed and copied without attribution from List of vaginal tumors which is close paraphrasing from source page [70], Talk:Vagina#Concerns

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom (LT) (talk • contribs) 00:15, March 18, 2018 (UTC)

More data points

I have never had a direct conflict with Barbara, and I see a lot of goodness in what she does for Wikipedia. I think she really wants to improve articles on women’s health. However, and with sadness, I have to agree with the above sentiments that it would be better for her to direct her efforts elsewhere.

A few months ago while reading the Breastfeeding article, I came across a passage that contained significant errors. As this is a Featured Article former Featured Article, I wondered if the passage had been recently vandalized, so I searched through the article history to see when it had changed. I discovered that the errors were introduced in this edit by Barbara (she copied the passage from another article that she had written).

The errors in this edit include:

• "About 2 to 3 days (72 to 96 hours) before the birth the breasts begin to produce the fore milk or colostrum.” This happens at mid-pregnancy, not 2-3 days before birth. Also, foremilk is not colostrum. Foremilk is the milk released in the beginning of every feed. Colostrum is the milk produced in the first days of breastfeeding.

• “...This sometimes described as "the milk coming in”.” No. The term “milk coming in” refers to the increase in milk production that occurs after delivery, not before delivery.

• "In about three days to five days the normal and expected milk forms.” The milk that is produced at days 0, 1, and 2, i.e. colostrum, is also perfectly normal and expected. This wording is not harmless — one of the reasons for low breastfeeding rates in some communities is the erroneous belief that colostrum is inadequate or bad food for babies.[71]

• "Engorgement of the breast is a normal development at this time. The breast changes and can become red.” Redness is not a normal feature of engorgement. Redness is a possible sign of infection (mastitis) in the breast.

Barbara's edit summary said that the content she was replacing was “outdated”. OK, the refs in the older content were from 2005, but I can see nothing outdated in the facts in it. It was a well-written, factually accurate passage that she replaced by a passage with a lot of problems.

Yesterday, after being pinged into this thread, I spot-checked Barbara’s other edits to Breastfeeding and found another significantly problematic edit. In this edit, she removed good content that describes the process of latching on, and also removed the important fact that a good latch is needed for the baby to get enough milk. Overall her edit also made the section less clear, in my opinion.

Looking at the pattern that’s emerging, my fear is that Barbara’s past contributions to medical topics will need to be systematically re-verified by other editors who have expertise in these topics and access to her sources. I think we are all in agreement that Wikipedia is short of editors on women’s health topics. If we don’t have enough people volunteering to edit in this area, where are we going to find the people to check and fix Barbara’s work?

Barbara, I hope you will continue to be active in the Wikipedia community. I love your sense of humour and your dedication. Nobody is good at everything, and that’s OK. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Clayoquot:, just noting that breastfeeding is not a featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh right. It's a former featured article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Mentorship

I've followed all the links above, I think, and am seeing problems with

• instances of poor prose - unclear expression, typo's, inadvertant repetition of ideas or text, etc. - all of which speak to a failure to double-check work before moving on;
• insufficient care with verifiability - such as attributing claims to sources that do not make those claims;
• some misreading;
• some close paraphrasing;
• some resistance when being challenged or corrected.

If I've missed some important areas of concern in my bullet list, please let me know.

Some of the examples cited in the evidence above are errors that all active medical editors make from time to time, and her talk page demeanour is better than that of several of Wikipedia's most active and appreciated medical editors. That said, however, I think an intervention is needed. I'd like to see Barbara taking more time with her editing, with particular focus on the above points: producing less text, perhaps, but producing much more polished and rigorous work.

What I'd like to do, if she's amenable, and others are agreeable, is actively mentor her: daily critiquing her performance in article- and talk-space. I'll be particularly checking that her sources support her interpretation (as well as a non-specialist can), but will also oversee expression, paraphrasing and talk page performance. We're 12 hours apart so she can ping me at the end of her day and I can review her work while she sleeps and have a critique ready for her when she's back online. I'd like to come back here with a progress report after a month and we can decide then if it's working and whether or not to continue.

If you can think of another, better approach, I'm all ears. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that Anthony; I think that is a good offer. I think it is agreed that Barbara has much to offer Wikipedia in general, but that there are some problems with Barbara's editing of medical articles, and with her reluctance to accept advice, so your assistance might hopefully guide her towards improvement in those areas. Could I suggest that until the community sees that improvement that Barbara restricts herself to non-medical articles? Allow Barbara to build up her confidence and skills, and allow the community to regain some trust in her editing. If she continued to edit medical articles, even under your guidance, before she was ready, and she made a mistake, it would likely be picked up quite quickly, and an incident made out of it, which might bring us back here for another discussion. Of course this all depends on Barbara herself. Unless Barbara willingly accepts you as mentor, and listens carefully to you, there will be no improvement. So my feeling is that the mentoring solution needs Barbara's own willingness and commitment, and would need a period of say six months of (non-problematic) non-medical editing to ensure we don't rapidly return to ANI for minor mistakes. SilkTork (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

SilkTork, I agree Barbara should not be editing biology or medicine articles for the time being. Once I'm confident she's ready, I'll ask her to begin editing medical content in user- or draft-space and, only when I'm confident she's mastered the bullet-list issues in that very difficult and complex topic, I'll propose a lifting of the restriction here. I'd rather not impose an arbitrary time limit, and promise not to waste the community's time by bringing her back here prematurely. It's just that, if she's clearly mastered those bullet points, above, in a shorter timeframe than 6 months, arbitrarily extending it to the 6 months would seem punitive to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I agree. I also think that this should be dependent on Barbara herself, and that it would be better if we are not imposing formal limitations or conditions on her. This should be entirely at her choice, and on the understanding that this is being done to enable us to assist her in editing Wikipedia without stress and conflict so that we can continue benefiting from her enthusiasm and hard work. SilkTork (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I just rang Barbara. She's got a lot on this morning but will respond later today or this evening. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I should add she reached out to me for help with her work, yesterday, specifically citation style. I was amenable to this.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed restrictions on my editing, and actually consider them valid and believe it or not I thank everyone for taking the time to respond. Some of this was hard to hear, admittedly. If it is okay, I would like to continue working on microbiology articles. There are gaps that I found that I can fill in with little 'trouble' or controversy.The only other thing I would like to do is have the opportunity to go back and correct the errors that where described in this ANI discussion. If I can do this, I will be able to clean up my 'messes' and make the content more accurate. I started doing this about two days ago, anyway and I am eager to keep doing it. I will add the phrase in my edit summary: "corrected previous error" and if Anthony doesn't think it was valid, it can be reverted by him (or anyone, really). Thank you to Michael Goodyear for helping with referencing. Thank you to Anthony for taking on this burden (!!) (While looking for references, I deleted this piece of vandalism in a medical article, this was not meant to 'test' my restrictions but is reflexive on my part. apologies) Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 18:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, per what SandyGeorgia, Clayoquot and I have stated above, there is also an issue of misunderstanding WP:MEDDATE (or viewing it differently) and neglecting WP:Preserve. In the collapse box, I already linked to this example. Here is an example of me trying to explain WP:MEDDATE. Similar about WP:MEDDATE was stated to an editor during the Cervix GA nomination. Anatomy or other medical material being supported by sources older than five years, or even significantly older than five years, does not mean that the material is outdated.

Thanks for taking this on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Good catch, Flyer. I shall discuss MEDDATE and PRESERVE with Barbara until I'm comfortable she's got it, and until I see PRESERVE routinely demonstrated in non-med topics. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I've proposed to Barbara that she drop translation, and avoid all health-related articles (psychology, medicine and biology, including microbiology.) We agree her rigor needs perfecting and she won't be coming back to medicine until her prose, formatting and grasp of her material are perfect. Barbara will immediately begin exercising rigor and AGF in any other knowledge domains she feels like embracing . She will work on article drafts covering any topic she chooses, including medicine. Can I get back to you when she and I think she's ready for medicine? I have no idea how long that will take. We haven't spoken about an interaction ban, but I support it and expect she will, too. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I've just spoken to Barbara and, yes, she's fine with a one-way interaction ban. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that Anthony. Given the sensitive nature of the health, sexuality and anatomy topic areas, and the evidence put forward in this discussion regarding Barbara's poor level of competence in those areas, combined with her long-term reluctance to accept that there was a problem, I would think it unlikely that the community would lift a topic ban without some extended and convincing evidence of improved competence. With your help she might be able to achieve that; though another option, and one that I think Barbara should give serious consideration to, is that Barbara decides that editing in health, sexuality and anatomy is too problematic for her and the project as a whole, and concentrates her energies on helping out on Wikipedia in other topic areas. I think Snowy Owl (Audubon), and Darlington Collection, show what she can do, and she helped out on referencing in Whiskey Rebellion during its successful GA review. There is so much positive she can do without venturing back into a area of known stress and difficulty. SilkTork (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I am not one of the involved editors here, but I will say that I thank User:Anthonyhcole for anything that can be done to improve this situation. I personally do not think that mentorship is promising for an experienced editor who doesn't seem to learn from her experience, but I would prefer to see efforts at solutions that minimize penalties. If not, not. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Some more data points

I have held off from commenting thus far, to ensure that the original semi-canvassing ping to me was well balanced by pinging others, and it has been. The problem of Barbara is a hard one. She has apparently been a very productive contributor to the translation task force. I cannot speak to how good her edits have been in Creole, but I have seen her praised for her work there. And she seems in some ways to be well-intentioned. She also has an ugly side, and when she lets that take her, she does disruptive and POINTy things.

• Obstinate, sometimes vindictive behavior This is the most troubling behavioral thing. Her original conflict with Flyer back in 2015 came from Barbara editing in an anti-feminist and pro-men's rights fashion, and led Barbara to start HOUNDING Flyer and led Barbara give barnstars to editors who were wishing nasty things on Flyer - people who come here to promote men's rights or denigrate women or write creepy stuff about sex. She got a 6 month block that was later reduced. (see this ANI and this one. That behavior was just ugly as hell, and Barbara never acknowledged it. She was unblocked only because she promised to steer clear of Flyer in certain ways and for a limited time per these conditions); she never acknowledged following or the ugly barnstarring. (unblock request, discussion, and unblock)

This is the kind of ugly behavior that has cropped up from time to time. I tried to let Barbara know that this was not OK, and that led to her filing this ANI asking for an IBAN with me. Which got no traction. If you look at the diffs that she provided (!) you will see the kind of behaviors in which she was engaging, that I was trying to warn her away from. This sort of behavior has continued. We had an academic spam article created at Culinary coaching which we deleted via an AfD. Barbara decided this was a "women's issues" thing (which is pretty sexist but whatever) and she tried like crazy to save it as admins can see from the history of that page, using poor quality refs and academic spam refs. When she realized that the AfD remained solidly against her, she went and created Sexism in medicine (creating diff - this was very clear in her contribs from that time, but the diffs at "Culinary coaching" are gone due its being deleted, so it is not clear now to non-admins). Sexism in medicine is a fine article to have btw, but its creation was POINTY and...bizarre as there is nothing particularly "women's issues" about teaching people to cook food that is good for them. This sort of thing.

Barbara and I got into a conflict at Ketorolac in March 2017 where she was trying to force in content that violated WP:NOTHOWTO, which MEDMOS also specifically warns against. She was just not hearing it at the talk page, and I ended up filing at EWN case. Her response to the whole thing, btw, was ~apparently~ this, including the image posted here. This is the kind of thing I mean above about behavior. That is just ...twisted and actually disdainful. Kind of funny, yes. But disdainful.

called "Revert me why"

Kind of related to that disdainful humor thing, see this mockery of the DS notice that she created in December 2016 after I gave her a real one. Please see the comments from guy just below the mock-DS notice.

(and this, User:SandyGeorgia, is what my remark at your talk page was about - Barbara is attracted to behavior like your hollering bias on the prostate stuff as "harming men" -- it brings out the worst in her and she encourages people in bad ways, like when she barnstarred Flyers' hounders).

• Content and sourcing In terms of content, this is the most troubling thing. For some reason, Barbara has refused to engage with MEDRS (this is getting better but is not there yet), and keeps adding content about health based on non-MEDRS sources. The earliest direct discussion I could find with her about this was back in the summer of 2015, in this section and the one below it, where Doc James was trying to teach her. I had a clash with her on some microbiome stuff that i posted about here in June 2016. She claims it is "confusing" but after two years of people trying to teach her, this is either simply obstinate or incompetence. That is a blunt thing to say, I know.
  • See Pain management in children as it stood when she built it up in August 2017. One of the most cited sources is this page from Stanford. We have said over and over that university/hospital websites are not OK per MEDRS. But there it is cited 9 times. A ref from 1989, another from 1998, 2 refs from 2001, others from 2003, 2004, 2007... this is just hard to watch - new articles being built up with already-outdated sources.

See this mess from the PTSD article in October 2017, where Barbara was edit warring in content based on press releases and a university/hospital website.

• COPYVIO - others have mentioned this, and this continues. this diff from 2 weeks ago, is a copy/paste from here, with the original inline citations left in place. That was at one of the prostate articles, which she ran right on over to in response to SandyGeorgia.

• Other stuff. Last fall Barbara was working on miscarriage-related topics and created Miscarriage and grief and Miscarriage and mental illness (which remain a bit of a mess in relation to each other, and with respect to each one's sourcing, content, and structure) and in the course of that, was really working the line that abortion (induced miscarriage) causes PTSD, which is straight up anti-abortion activist crap, which in light of her original mens rights activism/anti-feminism editing when she first got here, was disturbing. I opened a section about the sourcing she was using at WT:MED here which Barbara brought up again here. (that was part of the conflict at PTSD I mentioned above, as she wanted add it there as well)

Old issue now not continuing, but the traces remain: For a while she was adding a tag to refs that she got through her relationship with Pitt, as in this diff, where she was including "Access provided by the University of Pittsburgh" to citations she added. This was very inappropriate in my view (relevant to her initial access, but not to anyone else's subsequently, and promotional for Pitt). She stopped doing it but there are still about 70 pages with that tag still present.

She does have a sense of humor which I am sure many people appreciate, like the "revert me why" thing above. She made an article about Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism (which was inappropriate humor in mainspace and was renamed and very much revised after an AfD... but was funny!) and she has been contributing humor to Signpost for a while now. But that humor can be ugly/disdainful and misplaced.

This is a hard thing. She can be a good contributor, but there is this obstinate and even nasty side of her as well. I see above the proposal to mentor, and I hope that goes well. To be honest when her name comes up on my watch list I groan, as the content is likely to be badly sourced and not accurately summarizing the sources, and I would have to deal with the obstinate stuff trying to get it fixed. Most times I just ignore it as I try to avoid her. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC) (tweaked a bit Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC))

Thank you, @Jytdog:, for the context; it is helpful to be made aware of this, and if it is gender-based activism bologna, I am sorry I added to and furthered that behavior with my concern about a men's health topic that is affecting my life right now.

So, I now have three new concerns:

• Creole translation. Since I speak fluent Spanish and often check DYKs, GAs and FAs for translation, I know that translation is almost always problematic even in the best of circumstances, as well as being a frequent source of copyvio. DYKs, GAs and FAs are often sailing through until I come in and can read the sources, and say ... whoa, there! Not in the sources, not what the sources say, not a reliable source, or copyvio via direct translation. So, here we have an editor who has already demonstrated weak knowledge of copyvio and close paraphrasing, along with a problem in competency in interpreting sources, along with difficulty in understanding the medical concepts she is writing about, and YET we have her translating medical content to a language that perhaps no one else is fluent in or can double-check? If we are concerned about her work in English, we should be triply concerned about having her translating medical content then. I believe she should not be translating. If we have bad editing, why should we allow bad editing in a language few can check? (This is a problem throughout translations on Wikipedia, and why I am against the headlong rush into it ... we have poor medical content across the English project, and we are going to use the precious few resources we have to spread our poor content to other languages, making it possibly even poorer in the process? <scratching my head>
• Jytdog said: "She was unblocked only because she promised to steer clear of Flyer; she never acknowledged following or the ugly barnstarring. (unblock request, discussion, and unblock)". (emphasis mine) That is a long discussion; could one of you (Flyer or Jytdog) point out a specific diff where she "promised to steer clear of Flyer"? Because if we have that, and Barbara has indeed already gone back on that promise in her interaction with Flyer in this ANI, we have a good indication already that mentoring is not going to work. This is reading more and more like Mattisse Mentoring 101, and by allowing the Mattisse situation to go on for years, we just got more and more conflict, taking more and more time from good-faith editors who only wanted to help. If she has already broken a promise, we should see the diff (if possible), and call the game now.
• COPYVIO. We see a DIDNTHEARTHAT problem with understanding of copyright. It seems that various editors have told Barbara over and over what she can and cannot do vis-a-vis copyright, yet she indicates above that she still thinks it's OK to just plop public domain text into articles. Again, this is sounding too familiar.

Seeing the whole picture now from multiple editors, I am quite concerned we are heading down the same path that did not work with Mattisse. We did it there for the same reason here-- we wanted to retain the value of sometimes good edits. It didn't work. Again, though, I defer to @SilkTork:-- he was the one who did the hard mentoring work. I'm remembering we also clobbered @Deathphoenix: by putting him into a difficult mentoring situation in 2007. If it is still decided to go with mentoring, much tighter parameters could be called for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia the unblock conditions were more nuanced than what I wrote above, sorry. (have redacted). The unblock conditions were here and expired Dec 2015, I believe. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, struck my second point, then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Visiting Corn Flakes Eater issue

Allowing an editor who is not a scholar to use an account named user:Barbara (WVS), i.e. Wikipedia Visiting Scholar is a shame by itself. The result is to give an undue weight to someone without a reasonable screening process... and to extend this undue weight to what could be written by this person. Now, some problems have appeared and we are searching for remedies. Since WE are at fault, WE should try the following remedy, called Rectification of names: the said user should use an account named user:Barbara (WVCFE) i.e. Wikipedia Visiting Corn Flakes Eater. With such a reminder of her duties, perhaps this user will find her way back to modesty and efficiency. Pldx1 (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban / IBAN

The unblock conditions are at User_talk:Bfpage/guidelines, and according to the conditions, they expired "December 1st, 2015 unless someone seeks and reaches community consensus that they are still needed". The conditions were all to do with Barbara's interactions with Flyer and Jytdog, and were not to do with her general editing competence. Despite being blocked for hounding and agreeing to those conditions, Barbara's unblock request was : "I would like to request that I be unblocked. I am not hounding anyone and I am only trying to improve the encyclopedia. You may want to consider the possibility that the other editor may be mistaken and that the perception of being hounded may not be valid." That past history, and the ongoing problems that Jytdog points out, make for sobering reading.

My personal feeling while noting Barbara's behaviour at the Vagina article, and the wording of her email to me declining my offer to assist her on editing non-medical articles, is that she had an issue with Flyer. Her bizarre pointy editing on that article, and her apparent crusade to personally improve sexuality articles on Wikipedia (ie - replace Flyer's content with her own), coupled with what Jytdog has just produced for us, which shows that this is an issue which appears to stretch back years, indicates that this is a situation we need to address more seriously than to leave it to Barbara's own good will and common sense, which is what I hoped we could do. Part of the problem is that Barbara is very reluctant to see that she is causing a problem.

In summary, I think everyone agrees that Barbara has something of value to contribute to Wikipedia, and everyone agrees that her editing of medical articles is problematic, and we have a history going back to 2015 of her problematic interactions with Flyer who is a known good contributor to medical articles. As Barbara is causing problems in medical articles, and is displaying some of the same behaviours in her interactions with Flyer that caused her to be banned in 2015, I think - reluctantly - we do need to impose a formal topic ban on Barbara from editing medical articles. This would not restrict her from editing elsewhere on Wikipedia, nor would it significantly interfere with Anthonyhcole's mentoring, except in that when Anthony felt Barbara was ready to return to editing medical articles, there would need to be a community agreement to do so, and to undo the topic ban. SilkTork (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support a formal topic ban on Barbara from editing medical articles, and also a one-way interaction ban with Flyer22, a highly productive editor that Barbara seems obsessed with. I have been observing Barbara's behavior with concern for several years, and that plus the evidence presented above makes it clear to me that her problematic behavior needs to be restrained. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban on Barbara from editing medical articles, and a one-way interaction ban with Flyer22. Some of the articles concerned are on my watchlist and I have seen some of the never-ending good-faith-but-not-quite-right contributions. It has to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to read deeper into the background. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I will defer to those who will or have taken on the mentoring burden (SilkTork and Anthonyhcole), with two caveats:

• How will "medical articles" be defined?
• I should disclose that I am a volunteer Spanish interpreter in a medical clinic, so I have to be up on the ethics and standards. I am concerned about the translation issue I mentioned above,[72] and would prefer to see the ban, if there is one, extended to translating. If we have someone we do not allow to edit medical articles in English, neither should they be translating them to another language. Good judgment, nuance, and knowing when to stop and explain an interpreting/translating bump to both parties present (patient, doctor) are of critical importance when interpreting. I am getting the picture that Barbara may not recognize the limits of her own medical knowledge enough to know when she needs to consult a medical professional before assigning a word in another language. It is not often straightforward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I noticed your comment about translation and I share not only your concern about Barbara's translation work - but also your attitude toward the general idea that we should foist translations of English Wikipedia medical articles on other language encyclopedias. We both know how bad Wikipedia medical articles can be.

I like and respect Barbara very muuch, and I think if she can slow down and apply rigor, she'll be a fine editor.

As for the anti-feminist and pro-life positions (if, indeed, these are her positions), I have no problem with those. She's entitled to her views.

The idea that she is stalking Flyer22 is concerning. It's that that I want to read into. Could someone please link me to the beginning of the discord between Bfpage and Flyer? Barbara, ring me any time, and chime in here if you want to. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

See the ANIs linked in the very first line of this whole thread where Flyer laid out the background very clearly. I linked to them near the top of my post as well. That level of non-reading is disturbing, as is your comment about views. Yes everybody has views - the problem is that Barbara has been pushing them into articles and this is not OK for anybody to do. And the key behavioral issue is not something that needs "slowing down" as much as it needs a fundamental change in orientation to others; her obstinacy (refusing to listen to others and even derisively dismissing them) has kept her from engaging with the basic guidelines like MEDRS and MEDMOS and has made conflicts over specific content a time sink. That is unfortunately a character thing (like bluntness is a character thing for me) that will be very hard to mentor away. Yes "slowing down" would help but a fundamental turn needs to take place. I am, bluntly, concerned about you mentoring her now. How can you mentor to address what you will not see, even after this long thread? (that is not a rhetorical question) Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I have followed all the links above, I think. I want to know whether there were any instances of discord between Bfpage and Flyer22, prior to this ANI thread, that did not bubble up onto a noticeboard.

As for Barbara's views, they, in themselves, are not the issue. The issue is whether her views cloud her ability to edit neutrally. I'm still reading, trying to get a bigger picture of her editing history beyond the links provided above. It seems to me, though, that some obvious problems are insufficient rigor generally, insufficient committment to core policies and guidelines, and a tendency toward snark.

It would help matters enormously if you would refrain from snark yourself and not bring false evidence to this discussion. The latter undermines my confidence in anything you say here and the former undermines my respect for you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that you were looking for stuff prior to the first ANI. That was not at all clear from your post. When Flyer comes to ANI it tends to be very thorough, and her first ANI starts out with "I first addressed Bfpage about WP:Harassment..." and that includes links from 20 Feb 2015. Here is the interaction analyzer for the period from 1 Dec 2014 to 8 March 2015 when Flyer filed that ANI. Looks to me like they first clashed at Sexism - see this part of its history on 19 Feb, the day before Flyer gave Barbara the harassment warning.

I am sorry you found my note snarky; i was reading your post (and others in this thread) at their face value. You had no where addressed the "dark side" - the hounding and the surface-friendly-but-actually-ugly grooming of the "enemies of my enemy" which was really bad, since Flyer deals with so many nasty characters... and led to the 6 month block. If you word search both ANIs for "barnstar" (they are here: first one and 2nd one) you will see diffs of that behavior.

Barbara has something like a rebel streak that can be dark sometimes like with the grooming; sometimes it comes out as a delayed derisive gesture; quite often she says something nice and then does something different that she wanted to do anyway; more rarely she is directly confrontational. "Snark" is not really the word for that passel of stuff, which is going to be your biggest challenge, behavior wise, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• For clarity, I am not making a offer to mentor Barbara. I suggested to her in an email that because there was stress and tension involved in her editing the Vagina article, I would be prepared to work with her to bring some non-medical articles she had created to GA level, in order to assist her to voluntarily move away from the Vagina article. I am keeping that offer open.
• Though a medical topic ban should be enough, I support a one-way interaction ban with Flyer22 in order to reduce the possibility of friction down the line if Barbara decides to follow Flyer into non-medical areas.
• If Barbara is doing poor translation for other projects, that is beyond our scope to remedy here on the English Wikipedia as we have no jurisdiction on other projects. A discussion would need to be set up on each of the projects for which she is doing the translation, or a global ban set up on WikiMedia. Approaching those projects for which she is doing translation would seem to be the best approach at this stage, and they would be able to investigate themselves. I doubt if a global ban would be acceptable without first consulting with the other projects involved and establishing that there is a problem. SilkTork (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban on Barbara from editing medical articles, and a one-way interaction ban with Flyer22. IMO Barbara's edits can be a WP editor's worst nightmare. It's not easy to say that because criticism of another editor does not come easy to most of us. But in this case where we must weigh the hundreds of hours that Flyer and others have spent in correcting Barbara's edits, I could not be more sure that she should no longer be editing medical articles. Barbara's edits to articles related to sexuality have been especially problematic; for example she has said that she has a COI when it comes to rape and yet she has gone right ahead and edited the most delicate aspects of rape, for example deleting a section relating to the (rare) victim's experience of pleasure, calling it "nauseating" in her edit summary[73]. What this suggests to me is that perhaps Barbara's WP editing of medical articles may improve with mentoring but her COI regarding sexuality should bar her from editing in these areas. Gandydancer (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on medical articles, broadly construed, and a one-way interaction ban with Flyer22 Reborn. The troubling behavior and substandard edits I've seen were apparently only the tip of the iceberg. As more information continues to come to light, it seems as if a considerable amount of checking will need to be done on her contributions. Perhaps knowing that her edits will be more closely scrutinized will lead her to slow down and be careful and also to rethink the way she interacts with some of her fellow editors. I wish her the best. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban on Barbara from editing medical articles as there's a long history of problems from her in that subject area. I've experienced it more than once in the past.

and

• Object to a one-way interaction ban. Never liked the idea as it's unfair - interaction issues between editors are rarely so one-sided that they would merit such a lopsided sanction. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban from medical articles and a one-way interaction ban with Flyer22. Flyer22 has suffered enough, and kept her cool amazingly well. W.r.t. competence, of the evidence presented above, the part that I find most persuasive was presented by Barbara herself, in which she defended "Vaginal cancers... originate from vaginal epithelium" as being a decent summary of sources that say most vaginal cancers originate from the vaginal epithelium. This shows that after slowing down and being asked to re-scrutinize her work, she still believes her summary is OK. So I doubt that the technical errors we've been seeing are simply the result of working too fast or prioritizing quantity over quality. In response to Barbara's question regarding whether we think it is OK for her to edit microbiology articles, I would also ask her to voluntarily refrain from further editing in technical areas such as microbiology unless the edit is really a no-brainer. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• It's late here and I haven't read this carefully enough to formally support a TBAN, but it sure sounds like the right idea from a distance. Why is she so determined to edit medical articles? I don't like how freaky the custodians of those articles sometimes get, but it's part of how things de facto work here. Can't she do something else for a while? I'm not bothered by occasional crappy prose and typos in articles but it's best that they be in places where they can't actually harm people. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support a formal topic ban and a 1-way i-ban. There have been far more than enough opportunities for improvement and yet we have seen none. Natureium (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral. Bring this issue to ArbCom, and let them decide what to do. KMF (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom would only take such a case if the community was unable to handle the matter at noticeboards such as this one, KATMAKROFAN. It looks to me like the community is handling it just fine right here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - In my opinion, the real question is one that isn't being considered. In my opinion, the real question is whether to impose a Site Ban for a combination of a long history of vindictive conduct by Barbara against Flyer and stubbornly bad edits after many many cautions about bad edits, or whether to impose lesser sanctions. Since a Site Ban isn't under consideration, the question is what lesser remedy to impose. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support a formal topic-ban, and a one-way interaction ban. We know that one-way interaction bans are extreme, but extreme action is needed in this case, and this is an alternative to a Site Ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - We know that both one-way IBANS and two-way IBANS can be troublesome because of baiting when we have two editors who don't like each other, but here we have one editor who has a long history against another, for some reason that the rest of us don't know, and Flyer has done their best to avoid the mess. So this really is a case for a one-way IBAN. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support a site ban for Bfpage and her alt account Barbara (WVS) per "WWACD? (What Would ArbCom Do?)" lo prenu .katmakrofan. (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support after considering some of the other things editors have said, including the diffs that they have presented, I support a one way interaction ban and at least a (broadly construed) topic ban, including medicine, anatomy and sexuality articles. Flyer22 is a hardworking, diligent editor and doesn't deserve to be the subject of a user following them around and making either deliberately troublesome or incompetent edits. We need a topic ban at the very least to take stock and have a look at this editor's edits. Given the long, drawn out and fruitless discussions that have been had with this editor in the past, and rapid editing style, and the fact that we haven't had a discussion like this about this editor before and there seems to be quite a lot of different articles involved (and we have only had a look at a few here), I don't see how else we can proceed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Is It Time for a Close?

Is it time to close this thread with a conclusion, or should alternate proposals be considered? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

When closing, both of Barbara's accounts should be mentioned: User:Bfpage and User:Barbara (WVS). SilkTork (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've made a mentorship proposal, above, and would appreciate feedback from those involved before this thread is closed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think mentorship is likely to solve the problem in this case. It's not that she doesn't know that she's doing something wrong. She's been informed many, many times. Natureium (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I really believe that she doesn't know that she is doing anything wrong. If someone has been informed as many times as she has, and doesn't change their behavior, then she really isn't receiving the message. It isn't a case of I didn't hear that; she really didn't hear that. I think that she has a different thought process than some of us do, or a different perceptual mode, and really can't process negative feedback. However, it is worth trying if it is understood that it might not work. My own guess is that it won't, and we will have to decide whether she is a net negative. There are a few editors where everyone really hopes they will change their conduct because they make significant positive contributions, but also make significant negative contributions, and sometimes there is no sorting the two out. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It's very good of Anthony to offer mentorship. The arrangement that he and Barbara have worked out is as good as I can imagine. I too have doubts about the degree to which it will change things but it can't see how it would hurt. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Another thought for the close: It might be best to explicitly say that anatomy content is included in the topic ban from medical articles. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I have commented above on the mentorship offer. In summary, my thoughts are that it's worth trying, though it might be more beneficial for Barbara to concentrate on working in other areas of Wikipedia than on attempting to return to an area of known stress, conflict and difficulty, which the community might be unwilling to let her back into, even with some evidence of good work in the sandbox. @ Clayoquot - I think sexuality would also need to be included. Health, medicine, anatomy, and sexuality seem to be the areas of concern. Would Category:Health cover all those aspects? SilkTork (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I have faith in Anthonyhcole and believe it to be worth a try, but in the event mentorship fails, I hope we do not let this turn into a years-long protracted mess as did the Mattisse situation. Hope for success, but call it fast if it doesn't work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Health actually covers very few of these things at the moment. I think your list, i.e. health, medicine, anatomy, and sexuality, better captures the scope we're looking for. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I recommend that the word "sexuality" be included in any editing restriction. Flyer22 is, in my opinion, our best and most consistent long term editor in the essential topic area of sexuality. Barbara's problematic behavior is often related to articles about sexuality. I hope that the closing administrator will bring this particular disruption to an end. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate Rollback

• Family International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings. I was advised to report to this page by other editors. I'm a financially contributing Wikipedia user. I recently had edits I had made on a page Rolled back. This was done by User:L293D. As I understand it, and as an editor named "Amory" explained directly to L293D here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TonyBallioni), Rollback is to be used only in cases of Vandalism. If you check the diff: [74] in the right-hand column, I think you'll see that it was indeed a Rollback, and no explanation is given. Furthermore, you can see that my edits were sincere, considered, well-written, added facts (with citation) and were explained as clearly as possible within the 1000-character limit. If someone does not agree with my edits, they can revert with an explanation. It's too late now, the damage is done. It puts me in a bad light, and another editor is perceiving it that way. But if this does not qualify as vandalism, then would you please at least instruct L293D to wield his newly found authority much more carefully & maturely. This represented much time on my part, and seeing the power of someone to dismiss information as "vandalism" in a cursory manner, without discussion, and leading to flagging & further complications, is not at all encouraging for further contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for reading. (NOTE: I have sent a copy of this complaint to L293D, as required.) JohnnyJohnnyG (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@JohnnyJohnnyG: There is no record in your history of your having notified L293D of anything. See the instructions at the top of this page for the proper way to do so. General Ization ^Talk 16:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Johnny, you are new but you are already treading on very thin ice because of your conduct. Three experienced users have reverted your edits, not just the one you mention. Vandalism isn't the only reason for reverting another user's edits, and given the kind of edits you've been making - removing negative material from the article - it's not surprising that editors reverted. This is a very controversial article, and glancing at it I can see that some of the existing material should probably be toned down to be more neutral and faithful to the cited sources. That said, your edits are unacceptable. I suggest you stick to the article Talk page and argue why your edits are appropriate. During that discussion, you should not touch the article unless there is a clear consensus in your favor or partly in your favor. Otherwise, you will probably be blocked for disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

E/C Well JohnnyJohnny, you made some poor edits using poor sources and were reverted by more than one editor. nothing will happen to anybody here, except perhaps some admonishments. Personally I'd only admonish you, but it's probably due to inexperience. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I feel it is also worth noting that one's financial contributions to wikipedia, or lack thereof, do not matter one whit in disputes such as these. One's edits are judged on their own merits; Wikipedia is not "pay to win". Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@JohnnyJohnnyG: note that if you are sure that I made a mistake (I make some from time to time) every editor has the right to press the "undo" link and undo the previous edit. Rollback is just a permission to revert several edits in a row if they are by the same person. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Rollback should never be used to revert a good faith edit though. It is for removal of vandalism, removal of your own edits, or to remove widespread issues with an appropriate explanation. Sperril (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: please clarify that you understand the mentioned limitations on your use of the rollback tool. MPS1992 (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what rollback is to be used for. I was pointing out that if I mistook their edit for vandalism and that it was not, they could always undo my edit. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Use of Rollback in this situation could apply under circumstance 5) "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia", as JohnnyJohnnyG was removing sourced material from a sensitive article; however, a note should have been left on the talkpage under the clause: "provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page". Essentially, the principle in restoring the removed content was acceptable, but the method used was dubious, allowing JohnnyJohnnyG to create this incident report. This is like a law officer arresting someone for assault, but forgetting to read them their rights, so they get off on a technicality, and they go assault someone again the next day. So: @L293D:, please ensure you do the paperwork correctly in future. And @JohnnyJohnnyG:, stop removing sourced content from articles. SilkTork (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, in case you didn't see the tag, the rollback was made with Huggle. I had no idea that I even was on that page. I just saw that someone had removed sourced content, so I pressed Q (or R, I'm not sure). Sorry for all the disruption that derived from my rollback, if I had known I just would have let it for another user. L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

IP address issues

Despite me using WP:AIV to block IP addresses in the past for this in the past, I was referred here. So, the IP address 38.27.128.203 has been giving me a headache the last few days. They have been making edits to the Cincinnati Bengals roster template and newly acquired Cordy Glenn. While the edits on Cordy Glenn have stopped despite my warning on their talkpage, the edits on the template have not. They have repeatedly added a number for Cordy Glenn, despite him not having a number yet per the teams website their Twitter account (sometimes numbers are announced on social media) or even Cordy Glenn's twitter account. Meaning, no reliable source exists giving him a number. There's a couple other players they are doing it to as well. I honestly just want them blocked for a day or two since they are not heeding my warnings.--Rockchalk717 19:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: - I've semi protected the template for a month. If there are any articles which would benefit, just shout. Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Same issue from this editor at Template:New England Patriots roster ‎ and Brandon Bell (American football). We go through this every year, I don't understand what's behind people filling in made-up numbers (is there some advantage to a fantasy game in selecting published numbers?). It's evidently not a single person, it's geographically widespread. About the only thing I could suggest would be semi-protecting all the NFL roster templates until training camps start (July 16). Tarl N. (discuss) 20:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I will do that. I appreciate it!--Rockchalk717 22:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: - I didn't get that ping for some reason. Have semi'd the template for a month. Might be worth starting a discussion at WP level about having these (and similar) templates permanently semi-protected if this is an annual issue. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that the template should have been semi-protected. It has received a lot of edits by IPs, and most of them don't seem to be disruptive. If User:38.27.128.203 has been told several times that their edits are incorrect, but persists in making those edits, then that IP might need to be blocked, but I don't think semi-protecting the pages is the right solution. Calathan (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Per a request at my talk, I've unprotected the {{New England Patriots roster}}. That done, I will say that many IPs are not stable and blocking one IP might not have the effect of stopping the person behind that IP from editing. If there is a need to re-protect, then it can be done. I would still encourage discussion at WP level re either permanently semi-protecting these templates, or semi-protecting them each year at certain points on a recurring basis. Mjroots (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Kev519

I have sent many messages to this editor about creating incomplete and unreferenced articles like List of 1981–82 NBA season transactions, a list with no entries and no clear sources, just external links - there are many like these. I have been contacting the editor for months, but they continue to edit but not respond to my messages (see User talk:Kev519#Sources and communication). I have directed them towards WP:V, WP:BURDEN and WP:Communication is required, but they won't talk. In 18 months of editing, they have responded to no one and other editors have also raised concerns.

They have been at ANI before in Aug 2017, but I can't find the record. They have also been investigated and found to be using a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kev519/Archive. Boleyn (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not know how to make the tables of other transactions because it is complicated. (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• The August 2017 ANI. Search for it because the braces make it difficult for me to get it to jump to the thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This user has been adding empty tables and other similar edits to "XXXX in professional wrestling" year articles as well. He has been told to stop multiple times yet continues to add this unhelp information. - Galatz^Talk 13:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: While this conversation is going on, the user is continuing to add empty tables despite clearly being told to stop multiple times. See [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] as well as many other years - Galatz^Talk 13:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Also while this has been going on, Kev has continued to create articles like this List of 1988–89 NBA season transactions, incopmlete and with no clear references. Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup, same terrible format. Just create something and tell people to go somewhere else to find what they are looking for. - Galatz^Talk 21:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Now in addition to adding more sections with just mentions to go elsewhere, such as [80] [81] [82] he is also adding tags that say a section, that clearly isn't empty, is empty, such as [83] [84] - Galatz^Talk 22:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• I renew my call for us to simply eliminate all coverage of professional "wrestling" since no one would miss it anyway. EEng 23:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Except in this case, for this user, you would need to eliminate all sports coverage, as this user is an equal opportunity offender. - Galatz^Talk 00:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this website filling up maturity-challenged people? You should be ashamed of yourself for even writing something so insanely dumb. This is an ANI about a disruptive editor, no one gives a rats ass about your personal feelings on pro wrestling, contribute to the discussion at hand or kindly leave. You're kinda behaviour is exactly what causes "drama" that you seeminlgy hate.★Trekker (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to add, even if this is a joke, it's not contributing at all to the discussion, so please leave it out.★Trekker (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm serious. 1983_in_professional_wrestling isn't part of the sum of all human knowledge; it's a debit against human knowledge. EEng 04:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is it debiting? - Galatz^Talk 14:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Professional wrestling is one of those things with the property that each additional fact you learn about it actually makes you dumber. EEng 17:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Go away, no one wants you here and you contribute nothing of value. You should be the subject of an ANI yourself if you don't lay off. You're not funny and you disrupt.★Trekker (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we please get some sort of admin action here? I guess to match the empty tag he was putting on the non-empty sections earlier, he is now creating empty sections and putting the expand tag on it, across tons of articles, such as this [85]. - Galatz^Talk 01:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes this guy is very insistent, it's rather bothersome and I don't know we he keeps getting to edit if he's been using dock puppets in the past.★Trekker (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I’d like to add that this user has created similar issues with video game lists, adding sources that are considered unreliable per WP:VG/RS. I left him a polite message after doing some reversions, but have heard nothing in response. Red Phoenix ^talk 04:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I left him a message directing him to respond to this complaint. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Just an FYI, he is still editing currently, even after your message. See [86] and [87]. - Galatz^Talk 15:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Are those edits wrong? They're unsourced, certainly, which is problematic on its own. But I really know so little about professional wrestling that I can't tell if some random edit is an obvious hoax or good-faith. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I meant that he is ignoring your request to come here and respond. - Galatz^Talk 16:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

My observation from 2017: "This editor has done some dubious stuff IMO and seems to find unusual ways to push the boundaries in the grey area between good faith and vandalism." 9 months later and on it goes.. -- GreenC 19:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Edits at an article under Arab-Israeli conlict Arbitration Enforcement by a new user

• Alan Dershowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Parttime711employee (talk · contribs)

New user Parttime711employee's third edit was to the article on Dershowitz—an article whose edit summary states it's under Arbitration Enforcement restrictions barring edits by users with fewer than 500 edits and less than 30 days experience. I restored the text, which the other user subsequently removed. This also appears to be a violation of the AE restrictions on the edit summary.

I have two concerns:

1. Is there a technical issue with the protection at Alan Dershowitz, where the page should be protected against edits by users who don't meet the 500/30 criteria?
2. Can an uninvolved editor review the situation, revert if appropriate, and take such actions or issue such guidance as are needed with this new editor?

Thank you for assistance and clarification with this. —C.Fred (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred: No admin actually applied ECP to the article. I have now and logged it. The new editor is now aware of 500/30 and discretionary sanctions so it's up to them to follow the restriction, even on articles that aren't on ECP yet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Can Parttime711employee be blocked to stop further disruption and send a clear message that personal attacks and edit warring are not a way to begin your career here? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Has been discussed user's talk page.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

For my part I'm not convinced they are beginning their career. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC).

For my part I'm not convinced you are not making this personal. But everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt, and given your decided lack of evidence in support your 'opinion', I acknowledge that from time to time we all entitled to a harmless opinion about one another; that is, since you opened that door with yours. Thank you.Parttime711employee (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Why is the entire Dershowitz page under ECP? If anything, edits under ARBCOM should be restricted, but we shouldn't be in the business of locking up pages because a section or two is potentially an issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:ARBPIA has always taken a very broad interpretation of what falls into these restrictions. Even a weak connection, like you seem to feel this is, is still under WP:ARBPIA restrictions. - Galatz^Talk 18:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    • That is usually kept on an edit level, not necessarily on the article. The goal should be to have as few as possible locked articles. If Dershowitz is a problem for ARBCOM, then we can proceed and lock it down, but one person editing doesn't usually mean there is a problem. And if you look at the edit in question, it has nothing to do with the IP Conflict. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I tried to get Arbcom to change one word of the remedy ("feasible" to optimal") here to allow for these types of situations but didn't get anywhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Just my tencents, but IF THERE IS ANY POV, ambiguity, or even a protracted interest (same as POV), perhaps it would be better that interested wikipedians not become involved, i.e. cease and desist, there are LEGIONs of wikipedians to do the objective work; if you cannot remain objective, do not bother. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.37.45.134 (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Was this edit vandalism, and did it warrant the template issued?

As per heading.

O1lI0 reverted this edit with the summary of "Reverting vandalism or test edit", and placed a template warning on the IP editors talk page.

I maintain that both the edit was in good faith - as the edit summary stated it "Removed outdated statistic from 12 years ago" and so there was no need for the template issued, and I removed it from the talk page. O1lI0 disagreed and reinstated the template with the summary of "I said There are other better ways to change the data, like updating." - although I can find no evidence that he did this, and mentioned it to him on his talk page, which he subsequently removed with the summary of "See Re in your talk page." He then left a message on my talk page RE which doesn't really explain anything, apart from it seems to support that he still considers the original edit to be vandalism, or a test edit.

So, the question I'm asking is - was the removal of 12 year old information, accompanied by an edit summary that said exactly what it did, vandalism (or a test edit) and did it warrant the warning issued?

I've also informed Gilliam, because although not involved directly, it was their comment that made me look at the article in question. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

If I want to add a note, I will say that the expired information can be treated as history and does not need to be deleted. What is needed is an update. When it is not necessary to deletie expired information is a kind of test edit in my knowledge.O1lI0 (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not a test edit. It was clearly an intentional edit that accomplished the desired effect. It would have been been more appropriate to revert the edit and say, as you have here the expired information can be treated as history and does not need to be deleted. What is needed is an update. GMG^talk 16:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and I feel there are serious competence issues with O1lI0. After reading their communication attempt with Chaheel Riens, I glanced at their edits and found this removal of a reliable source from the Goertek article, along with removal of text with an edit summary of removal of spam, for a company that is on Forbes Top 50 Asian companies list, and is regarded as a leading Chinese electronics company. And a block threat to User:Le Petit Chat based on an imagined editing as an IP with no supporting evidence. In fact that user's talk page is full of threats from O1lI0, including this warning for restoring a valid cite that O1lI0 had removed. SilkTork (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. As a new French user, I didn't know how to solve this problem. I had chosen to ignore User:O1lI0 warnings, since they were at least stupid (such as the accusation of using IP adresses I had no link with). May I remove O1lI0's threats from my userpage now ? -Le Petit Chat (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Le Petit Chat, you may remove virtually anything from your own userpage. GMG^talk 19:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• O1lI0, I suppose I'll say this much, in the hopes that you are amenable to friendly advice, and that maybe this can be resolved in a way that doesn't need to escalate further. I've done a little editing in languages I don't speak fluently (or at all), and it's possible to do so and be productive, but when you do, you need to proceed very carefully. For example, I don't undo anyone who reverts me on a non-English project, even if I feel pretty sure they were wrong, and my edit was an improvement. When someone reverts you, or tries to correct you, its more likely that you've misunderstood some nuance, and that you should listen to their advice, because it's difficult to understand nuance when you're not speaking your native tongue.

If you have a disagreement, instead of arguing, it's better to admit they might be right, and if needed, ask for a second opinion. If you'd like, you can ping me in these instances and I'll be happy to help. The examples provided by User:SilkTork are problematic, and they're a trend we need to fix. You especially need to be careful of issuing warnings, because these can drive new editors away, and for long-time editors, can make things much worse, in a way that isn't necessary. Are you open to this guidance going forward? GMG^talk 00:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing O1lI0's contributions going back a bit further I've just issued the user a competence warning against reverting other editors and issuing inappropriate threats. SilkTork (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

[88] and [89] feel more like WP:REVENGE than WP:INCOMPETENT for me since he suspected User:Le Petit Chat to be an IP user that he is in conflict with. (inb4 this IP address gets accused)--130.102.13.50 (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, the vibe here seems to be that while there was nothing wrong with the reversion, per se, the subject of the reversion wasn't vandalism or a test edit, ergo the warning template was not applicable. I'm removing it again. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, whether the warning stays or goes it probably a moot point by now. The IP is registered to AT&T, and mobile IPs change frequently, meaning if the person hasn't seen it by now, they likely never will. The real issue with the warning is that we don't want to confuse new editors by barking at them for what they believed was a good faith edit, when we should be explaining whatever the problem was so they can fix it. GMG^talk 13:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

True - but the editor who applied the warning template is still around and editing; he will see that as per the above discussion mistakes get corrected. Let's not lose sight of the fact that O1lI0 made no effort to explain what the problem was in their own eyes either - apart from their opinion that it was vandalism. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• O1lI0 is a frequent editor on Chinese wikipedia [90]. At a glance, his/her Chinese is much better than his/her command of English (at any rate, vastly better than my Chinese). Of course, we don't want to discourage people from editing enwiki just because their English is less than flawless, but perhaps it explains the communication difficulties. Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Fiachra10003, according to Google Translate he was also blocked more than oncein Chinese wikipedia for "adding meaningless, non-modern Chinese characters" so I doubt he is good at Chinese. It's more like what he said were incomprehensible in general.--130.102.13.26 (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Apart from what you have mentioned above, I would also like to add that O1lI0 has been frequently abusing templates like {{expand language}} when the corresponding articles are really no better than the English ones. --117.136.36.250 (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that. I wonder if he thinks the template is an Interlanguage link? Anyway, I have watchlisted his page, so if there are any future reported issues with his editing, I'll take a look and deal with it. SilkTork (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate use of rollbacker?

A list of bogus warnings by Gooseflesh12 is here. I believe they abused rollbacker with these edits [91][92][93]. They edit warred with rollbacker to retain BLP violation without discussion per WP:ONUS (and WP:BLPPRIMARY) to retain such information. They threatened blocks for vandalism even after being informed it was a BLP violation[94]. Please remove rollbacker rights for this editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16e:293f:e377:8c63:4c78 (talk)

There are multiple issues here. I'm not sure why that specific paragraph is supposed to be a BLP violation while the rest of the section is OK. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing more is fine, restoring with rollbacker is not. Nor are the frivolous warnings. WP:ONUS is clear. If there are multiple issues, "vandalism" and "rollbacker" should not be claimed or used. I don't claim to be right, but engaging through rollbacker and threats of blocks for vandalism is clear abuse.

<<ec>>As it removed sourced content, it was probably acceptable to rollback. The not recognizing of a good faith edit during discussion is a bit trigger happy. Frankly I think removal needs discussion as the whole tawdry mess seems adequately cited.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The allegations concern someone who died in 2001. How could this be a 'BLP violation'? 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:57D:CE40:7616:9F1 (talk)

Mackenzie_Phillips died!? --Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, nobody seems to have told her :) On a serious note, it might be sourced material—but it's sourced to Oprah—is that really an RS?! —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 07:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. There was an Oprah interview. IMHO, that whole personal life section could go-- salacious scandal sheet material given too much weight here, but I guess I'm going of topic.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Imagine trying to remove more when a rollbacker edit wars to try and keep a 4th person account (daughter of some guy that thought it was true and told said daughter). Twice removed "witnesses" aren't useful as sources. My dad thought O.J was guilty, too, but neither his account, nor my statement of his account is in the article. --2600:8800:1300:16E:293F:E377:8C63:4C78 (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

These sources are a vast distance from being reliable: they're entertainment news reports, not secondary sources published by experts in the field. There's a reason we generally prohibit primary sources in biographies of living people. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Gooseflesh12 has a label on their userpage saying "Because of school, Gooseflesh12 will not be very active on weekdays, but should be back editing enthusiastically on weekends (except when doing homework or on vacation)." User:Gilliam granted the tool that has caused problems when used by a schoolchild in this instance, and may be able to offer an opinion on whether the tool should be retained, especially given that Gooseflesh12 has not responded here. MPS1992 (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Being in school, in American parlance, does not necessarily mean one is a child. Here, even graduate students can be referred to as being "In school", and the average age of such students trends towards the mid to late twenties. Icarosaurvus (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

His previous username, changed in the last week, is "Yexstorm2001." Even millenial math puts him at 16-17.

And the request stems from his edit warring to retain poorly sourced information in a BLP, using rollbacker to accomplish it as well as the misuse of warnings to make accusations of vandalism. Not once, but 3 times. Regardless of age, rollbacker is not working out for him.

Gilliam has made hundreds of edits since this ANI and notice to him was published. They don't appear to be opposed to removing the rollbacker bit or interested in defending its retention. 2600:8800:1300:16E:51A2:8569:F6FF:E0A4 (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

They went on holiday three hours later  :) —SerialNumberParanoia/^{cheap shit room} 11:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It was a nice notice but they have made hundreds of edits while on holiday including today. --2600:8800:1300:16E:954D:E239:2954:ADA6 (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, nearly four hundred. Most odd. Hi Gilliam! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 10:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Gooseflesh12 has stopped using rollbacker and is using twinkle. He no longer needs rollbacker. Please remove it.

Proposal

Support removal. Gooseflesh12 has only been editing a year and has only had rollbacker since January. He has not commented or defended his actions. He's obviously not ready and lacks the accountability necessary for having it. 08:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment; As the admin who granted rollback rights to Gooseflesh12, I'm willing to let this discussion run its course.– Gilliam (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Mediatech492: Personal attacks, bad revert, removal of warnings from own talk page, aggressive behavior

This is a report about User:Mediatech492. It is my first report on this board and I hope that I'm doing this correctly.

Hi, I first reacted to this with a "trout" and a "smiley" template, because it clearly was an accident and I took this humorously. Another user previously involved in a heated discussion added a humorful comment to the section. The reaction made me raise an eyebrow: The whole section was removed from the talk page as if nothing ever happened, and the bad revert was undone without any comment.

That made me have a look at the talk page's history and the rest of the talk page. The user has personally attacked another editor by manipulating the heading of a discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mediatech492&diff=798930602&oldid=798921030&diffmode=source "(Undid revision 798921030 by MarnetteD (talk)Per: it's my own talk page and you can go fuck yourself)" (emphasis mine)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mediatech492&diff=798931007&oldid=798930821&diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mediatech492&diff=798961304&oldid=798943119&diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mediatech492&diff=799462575&oldid=799460478&diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mediatech492&action=history

I highly disapprove of this behavior, I would like to have my talk page comment restored and/or replaced by a warning, I don't want that warning to be removed and I don't know what to do here. The user has been banned twice, but just for "edit warring" and short time periods. Someone acting like this might need a stronger call to order. Especially one that does not get conveniently removed from the talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Editors can remove most things from their talk page per WP:BLANKING. They cannot, however, use headings to attack other editors (WP:TALKNEW). I've changed the wording and warned them not to restore. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate TBF's vigilance, but at least as far as I am concerned the events described by those diffs are ancient history (being in September of last year); I hoped that Mediatech942 felt similarly. I concluded from their wordless removal of our good-natured trouts that they did not, but I was and am prepared to move on. Mediatech942 can remove anything they like (except a declined unblock notice) from their Talk page, and I personally see no reason to restore your/our comments; we know they were seen and, even if their intent was not understood, indirectly acknowledged. General Ization ^Talk 18:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: @General Ization: Thank you very much. Well, the personal attack report probably came too late - it bothers me that this does not seem to lead to any consequences. I hope that it will at least be remembered if the user continues to ignore rules pointed out to them by multiple different users. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This is frivolous whining from an editor (User: General Ization) with a long history of childish behaviour. I have nothing further to say about it. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mediatech492: Another personal attack. Keep it up, and you'll see yourself blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I am the one under attack here, and I have the right to speak in my defence. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You have the right, indeed, to distinguish attacks on personal attributes from attacks on editing behavior, but that only goes so far, here. It's best to walk away. If you can't walk away, that's an indication of where the issue is. MPS1992 (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This started because I removed a frivolous edit from my talk page. I then "Walked away" at that point making no further issue of it. But now its been made an issue here, so now I am obliged to deal with this matter until it is resolved. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I don't think you meant to cause offense with your trout, but some editors do not find trouts to be humorous. It's best to avoid giving someone a trout unless you have interacted with them in the past and are on friendly terms. I understand that you didn't appreciate Mediatech's removal of your comment, but you should have let it drop there. Lepricavark (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi :) Yes – it was the first and only time that I used the "trout" template; as the only reaction was a commentless removal, I'll use a simple kind text message with a winking smiley next time.

Just to clarify here: I didn't create this Administrator Noticeboard entry mainly because my talk page addition has been removed. I created it because of the personal attack I noticed when having a look at the rest of the page. Attempts to remove the attack had been answered by above-mentioned profanities, so I decided to report the user instead of attempting to do what multiple other users failed to do before. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

So not only do you admit to making pointless edits to my talk page, but you also have now made a frivolous report about an event that occurred many months ago which had nothing to do with you, and was considered a closed event by all involved at that time. May I suggest from now on you limit your efforts to matters that concern yourself. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The "closed event" that occured "many months ago" was still, as of time of the report, being publicly advertised using a personal attack in a heading on your talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Range block

Would a range block be useful for this vandal? In the last month and a half, he has used about 53 IPv6 addresses from 2600:1001:b000: ... to 2600:1001:b128: ... He has also used 25 IPv4 addresses that unfortunately don't fit into ranges very well. Semi-protection has been tried on several members of Category:Cleveland Browns seasons and some unrelated articles like Indian and Homeschooling, but he moves on to other articles and anyway, nobody wants to protect the whole category. Art LaPella (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocking Special:Contributions/2600:1001:b000:0:0:0:0:0/39 would get all of the IP addresses, but that's probably wider than necessary. From poking around, it looks like JamesBWatson already range blocked Special:Contributions/2600:1001:b000:0:0:0:0:0/42. Special:Contributions/2600:1001:b100:0:0:0:0:0/42 seems to be where the the user is currently editing. I'll block that for two weeks. We can look at wider range blocks if these fail to stop the disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Whatever /39 and /42 may mean, there has been no more of that vandalism so far. Art LaPella (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

"Whatever /39 and /42 may mean..." High-tech voodoo. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Now he's back. Oh well, thanks for trying. Art LaPella (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I did a couple more range blocks (Special:Contributions/64.134.120.0/21, Special:Contributions/64.134.196.0/23, and Special:Contributions/64.134.160.0/20), each for two weeks. I tried to keep the range blocks reasonable, but the disruption is spread out across this network. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The vandalism has stopped again, since this. Art LaPella (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it proper to include potentially inflamitory summaries of external articles in the "mentioned by media" section of a talk page?

I'm not sure if this is the correct location for this question. Recently an article talking about the AR-15 and NRA pages came out in The Verge. A few other sources have since parroted the article. This material has been added to the article talk pages with commentary that I feel could be seen as inflammatory[[95]]. The article summaries seem arbitrary and the view of the person posting to the talk page. What talk page guidelines would apply? Is it reasonable to include notation that the articles are disputed or that most are repeats? I feel these have been added in a way that could suggest a moral high or low ground with respect to the views of the editors involved. What and how do talk page standards apply to such content, especially when specific editors are named in the articles? Thanks. Springee (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's at least copy it here, so everyone can see what we're talking about:

What about that is improper? Is it the qoutes to show their relevance. Note that this replaced a shorter version which also had quotes, so I just followed that example. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a problem, although if the OP wants to propose using different quotes, that should be considered. I've only scratched the surface of being involved in gun-related articles following the Parkland shooting and it's quite obvious that there is a dedicated group of editors defending a particular POV. For example, there are four open RfCs at National Rifle Association in which our content policies and guidelines are being interpreted very differently by the same editors depending on whether the proposed material is laudatory or critical of the NRA. - MrX 🖋 12:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Then you should try to be more consistent :) . Kidding aside, we should be careful with claims of inconsistency. We all carry biases and should be careful about suggesting it's just the other editors least our own edits are subject to critical review. Regardless, thanks for the input. I think we should consider changing the quotes. Springee (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The quotes... The first one is the same quote used in the previous version, placed there by a different editor. The second is not a quote, but a comment, without naming the editor. I could have named that editor, and named all the other editors in the others, but I didn't. I didn't think that would be right. Give me credit for that. That article is very different from the Verge article; it's ruthless, so I didn't even try to pick a quote. The quote from Newsweek is the very first sentence. The quote from Haaretz is from the second sentence. Those quotes are fair quotes which summarize the gist of the content and problem, a problem which I did not create. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The Week and Haaretz should probably be removed since those are just parreting the Verge article. The edit summery is pretty problematic and bad faith "Added more articles. BTW, several editors are named and their edits discussed. Don't wear such mentions as badges of honor, because this whole affair has dishonored Wikipedia." while keeping a polemic list on their talk page titled "Wikipedia gun nuts in the news" and listing everyone involved and their perceived issues, going on about a cabal of some sort. The apparent attempt to shame specific editors with it was very inappropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

"Bad faith"? I suggest you keep "boomerang" in mind before you go further down that road. What I have on my own talk page/sandbox is my business, and there's nothing improper with it. Sheesh, it's hatted!

I did not create the problem, or get myself named in RS for violating policies here, so don't try to blame me for the situation. Those names are not in the Press template. That wouldn't be right. BTW, this isn't outing either. Editors who do things get named all the time here, but we still keep their real names private.

I don't see any point to escalating this, as that would just draw more attention to the situation and to those editors, whose usernames would then become known to a broader audience. Right now we are the ones who know, and few others. If your concern is to protect them, then silence is golden. If your real concern is to somehow get me in trouble for not doing anything wrong, then boomerang and Streisand effect kick in and any (feigned?) concern for protecting those editors from shaming will be revealed as a sham, because attacking me for YOUR problems will only reflect badly on you and them. I have no interest in pursuing this further, so don't push my buttons and get me started. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Please read WP:POLEMIC especially point 3, but it ticks the boxes for basically all of them. PackMecEng (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have weighed in including BullRangifer for posting the contested material (and thus opening themselves up for potential criticism). Springee (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. As far as I'm concerned, we don't need to go further. I have enjoyed the conciliatory conversation on my talk page and we're good. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Mentioned the external sources talking about the page specifically is fine, I would just eliminate the quotes since that's one editor's take-away from the articles which is not necessarily right or wrong. Given the heated discussions on these articles, those invested should avoid adding anything that could be taken as spin, but it is factually true these external articls about WP's pages were published, and that's fine. (They're short enough and all about the pages; if it were to target a specific page or section, that may be where I'd use a quote only to aid in navigation). --Masem (t) 15:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I do agree with that as well. There is nothing wrong with putting external sources about the article in those article. But presentation is important. PackMecEng (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me. Someone else is welcome to remove the quotes. I have to run now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Since no one else has done it yet, I went ahead and did it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the bigger picture, I'd like to see the community step up and respond to the content of these critical articles. My approach would be to break them down point-by-point and discuss each of the issues which have been brought up. I think we'll find a mixture of misconceptions/inaccurate information, problems that have since been resolved and ongoing issues that still need to be addressed. This is an opportunity to self-reflect and educate the public/media about how Wikipedia works. This could take place on WikiProject Firearms where curious media folks are likely to come across it, or at a community-wide venue such as the NPOV noticeboard. –dlthewave ☎ 17:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

That is both an interesting and constructive angle. Would a discussion on the Firearms board be a violation of "not a forum"? I'm also not sure about NPOVN since we don't have a specific issue we are trying to address. I'm not trying to be obstructionist and I think such a discussion would be very productive since, if nothing else, I believe the articles cast things in an unfair light. Even if we don't agree on specific content I suspect we would agree on some of the things I think the article got wrong. I won't initiate it but I will happily contribute. Springee (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that would precisely be a violation of WP:NOTFORUM, very much so. Well put, Springee. It sounds like a discussion worth having, but please have it somewhere else, on an actual forum. There are other high-profile websites out there where curious media folks would equally, or even more so, be likely to come across it. Links to it at Wikiproject Firearms would be fine, AFAICS. I'm not well-acquainted with internet forums, so I'm shy of suggesting, but, uh, say, a Reddit thread? Or.. I'm sure some people have better ideas. Bishonen | talk 18:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC).

I brought it up at the Help desk as well. It's relevant to improving the project and addressing potential problems, but I'm not sure if there's an appropriate place to do it. –dlthewave ☎ 19:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

As far as a response to the articles goes, I think there's potential for an op-ed in The Signpost. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think including quotes from the articles is necessary. I don't think most journalists appreciate that Wikipedia is striving to be an encyclopedia and how that is different from what the media does. Compare the Britannica article - it has no mention of media stories that ascribe a special importance to the AR15's role in mass shootings in the United States. Here is a book source from ABC CLIO that discusses the media's imprecise use of the term "assault rifle" and recent academic studies that have found that handguns were used in more mass shootings than ARs (including Virginia Tech). These are the types of "details" that journalists routinely ignore, but editors of an encylopedia take seriously, especially where academic sources are critical or dispute key parts of the media coverage.
• If our editors truly believe that a particular type of gun makes future violence more likely, I respect their opinion, but I would point our that there are numerous scholarly sources that have discussed the role of the media itself and the influence it has on people who are already at risk for this type of behavior [96] [97] - I think we as editors have to recognize that the media coverage about this can't be considered neutral because they are self-limiting to actively minimize what has been called the "contagion effect" (by focusing on the gun, apparently) and that we should be aware of the difference between media sources and academic sources when discussing whether something is due for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Editor won't stop adding pointless links

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

As you can see from his talk page, I (and others) have tried to talk to AlchemTarun several times over the past several months about overlinking and adding useless or incorrect links to articles. This has included linking to words like science, prominent, potential and damage, where these links do not help to provide context to the article. He has also added links to incorrect articles, and was informed about this by another editor. He has also been adding pointless links inside citations, such as in [98], which another editor informed was inappropriate, but this was ignored. I don't see any edits he has made other than adding bad links. At this point, he has contributed nothing to the encyclopedia other than providing more work for others to do to undo these links. Natureium (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like disruptive editing to me. I'd be prepared to give him a temporary block if he continues. Deb (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

AtosiOBP (talk · contribs) WP:NOTHERE

Persistent spam-only account for Open Book Publishers. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

There is also a discussion that has been started at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Open_Book_Publishers. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion was started by a person who run into this for the first time. There is nothing to discuss; A clear case of WP:NOTHERE SPA. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I've indeffed this account and two more: Special:Diff/831588463. SmartSE (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

52.206.0.0/16

There have been numerous frivolous unblock requests from 52.206.0.0/16 since it was blocked. Revoke talk page? Septrillion (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done I will however add that I am not altogether comfortable with a range block set for five years. Is there something here that I am missing? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: See: https://ip-ranges.amazonaws.com/ip-ranges.json . Large amounts of 52.x are AWS us-east-1, aka accessible by anyone who starts a free trial account and wants to use it to make a wacky VPN ( e.g. 52.20.0.0/14). We should probably block everything in that file. SnowFire (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The unblock requests are all coming from a lone /24 which is obviously a school using filtering software. A more useful block message might be useful. Indeed a soft block might be more appropriate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I bow to my more tech savvy fellow admins. Please feel free to modify the block in any way you believe appropriate. We should probably keep Slakr in the loop as the original blocking admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, I love how these cats talk so smart, and all I can do is be impressed by them. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies Hehe. My command of tech topped out with the advent of the electric typewriter. It was a wondrous thing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Especially the Selectric and its "golf ball". Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, most if not all of aws's ranges are blocked for the exact reasons mentioned (i.e., free tier allows anyone to ip hop within seconds). This was done on request after a discussion among some checkusers and admins a little while back. I wouldn't recommend disabling talk page access, however, as there might be some AWS corporate-office ranges hidden in there that should be able to request unblocking. Nor would I suggest converting a range to a soft block unless you can be reasonably positive there aren't public ec2 ranges in there. The simplest way to check an unblock request is to reverse-lookup the IP (e.g., you'll see something like ec2-*.compute-1.amazonaws.com, with the keywords being "ec2" and "compute". Those are poor candidates for unblocking or softening of the block. Otherwise, I'd say just grant IPBE if the person is likely to be a legit user. Feel free to do whatever, though; these are just suggestions. --slakr^\ talk / 17:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Assumptions of bad faith?

I've not edited Wikipedia in... three or four years? Something like that. But today I started adding some content to the current events portal and, for my efforts, have had my edits summarily removed without explanation and received a threatening talk page message telling me "Please, consider making good faith edits before you indulge in vandalism. I wouldn't vandalize Wikipedia if I were you." If this is the welcome editors expect now, then WP:AGF and WP:BITE must have fallen by the wayside. 2.28.13.202 (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of what you added and what was subsequently removed? 2601:401:500:5D25:F8EE:FAB1:7C4D:FBA2 (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. addition, revert without explanation, readdition, next item added, summary revert, and then an accusation of vandalism and the additional threat "I had to revert two of your edits (I would've reverted a third, but that was impossible)". I assume the third was the readdition of the previously removed material. 2.28.13.202 (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You are dangerously close to violating 3RR 2601:401:500:5D25:F8EE:FAB1:7C4D:FBA2 (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've been keeping count. In any event I don't intend any additional reverts now there are uninvolved eyes involved. Would much rather leave it up to experienced editors now to do (or not do) whatever they deem correct. 2.28.13.202 (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Call me when you get the chance is, however, quite out of bounds making unfounded accusations of vandalism for what appear to be clearly good faith additions. Jbh ^Talk 02:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it won't happen again. Call me when you get the chance (We need to talk) 02:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Good. Few things irritate me (and many others) more than the unexplained reverts of IP edits and the subsequent warnings. And 2601:401:500:5D25:F8EE:FAB1:7C4D:FBA2, please don't fetishize 3R. If anyone was going to get blocked there, it wouldn't have been the IP--assuming the admin on call knew what they were doing. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This was so weird, and so obviously not vandalism, that I've started looking over this user's contributions and I've found this exchange which is troubling: "Your "trying to help out" was not what it seems. Please reconsider passing off vandalism as "un-vandalizing." If you wish to make more useful contributions, you should create an account. I think one account is enough for you as it is for me. Maybe you can come up with a catchy name instead of impersonating other Wikipedians[...] Now, please, stop trying to fake innocence when you are vandalizing the wiki, which could get you blocked for doing so, ya hear?" That was also targetted at an IP making good faith edits to the article. 2.28.13.202 (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

And a(n admittedly weak) personal attack here. 2.28.13.202 (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

And a weak PA here too. I'm gonna leave it there as I don't want the user to feel harassed and they obviously have passion. 2.28.13.202 (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) x2 They are a relatively new editor and I have not noticed that this issue has been addressed with them before. I have 'counseled' them on their talk page. If they go after an IP again I would support admin intervention (and I have no doubt Drmies would come down on them like a ton of bricks if they do it again) but, as things stand, they have apologized which is more than many do when they screw up. Jbh ^Talk 03:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

  I've just read your note and it seems very fair and reasonable. Like you said, 'fessing up to one's mistakes is a very positive character trait. 2.28.13.202 (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• It is now happening again. Is it now considered normal to wholesale delete contributions by newcomers without explanation? 2.28.13.202 (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Can you provide a WP:Diff to the specific edit(s) you're talking about? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• There is an unexplained wholesale deetion of sourced content here, another here, and a third here. I'm going to restore them all citing this thread. 92.10.184.187 (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Those were all good deletions, all trivial events. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Our ethos and guidelines are that unregistered editors are treated the same. The reality is they are not. As an IP editor you have restricted use of the site, and certain personal details about you are revealed through your IP address (there should be more warning about this in the software, but there isn't). In addition, because the bulk of inappropriate edits are made by unregistered accounts, some users tend to be more dubious about contributions by IP editors than by registered users. See Wikipedia:Tutorial/Registration for more information; and for a smoother experience when editing Wikipedia, give some consideration to registering. SilkTork (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

A nice idea in theory; however years of experience have told me that IPs are sometimes editors who have retired and just want to dip their toe back into the place while also having their edits judged purely on their own merits (which I believe is the case here), or editors who left after harassment and don't want to be treated like crap (not that IPs don't get treated like crap already, as I can testify from personal experience). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

If an IP has edited on Wikipedia before, as a registered account. Then he/she should reveal that old account or create a new account. I'm not a fan of mysteries. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That flies in the face of policy and ethos on this site, surely? Can you please link me a policy to support your demands? 92.10.184.187 (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

So long as the IP is not editing in violation of WP:BADSOCK there is no requirement for an IP, or any account, to disclose. An IP user whose IP address changes should make it clear they are not different people ie there needs to be continuity of identity in situations where confusion could occur. SOCK does not quite go this far but rather says "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors" ^{(emp mine)} Jbh ^Talk 16:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• This is a textbook example of how an ANI works. IP editor comes with valid complaint and proof. That gets warped into claims that they are socks or bad actors. Is Drmies the only rational editor here?104.163.147.121 (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, Drmies is the only rational editor here ... except for all the others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• But, actually, your explication of how AN/I works is missing some steps: IP editor comes with valid complaint, complaint is dealt with, IP editor continues to complain, IP's story starts to show inconsistencies, mention is made of socks and bad actors, IP is determined to be sock of blocked editor. That happens more times then would be expected by randomness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, exactly who are you accusing me of being a sock of? The last three days, on the IPs listed here, are my only contributions in years. So go ahead, show me your evidence I'm a "bad actor". 92.10.188.218 (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe you should lose the chip on your shoulder, and ratchet up your reading comprehension a bit: no accusation was made against you, just a general statement about a scenario which happens at AN/I quite frequently. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC and edit war at Useful idiot

My apologies for the complexity of this. In December, I started an RfC about using the Oxford English Dictionary at the Useful idiot article, the quotation in question being "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union". As you can see, SPECIFICO immediately said that the RfC might not resolve the issue. The RfC ensued. Apparently getting approval for my proposed sentence, I inserted it in the article. My very best wishes promptly removed it. After being requested by me, the closer Fish and karate clarified the closure. As you can see, SPECIFICO complained about the clarification and "My very best wishes" disputed the meaning of the closing statement. "My very best wishes" then moved the sentence in contention away from the section dealing with etymology and edited it to say that the OED "erroneously tells..." I subsequently moved it back to the appropriate paragraph. Some time later, "My very best wishes" removed it again. Thucydides411 restored it, while SPECIFICO undid his revision, with the edit summary "Remove edit-war against consensus". An edit war ensued, leading to the intervention of Drmies, with the apparent perverse result that we are blocked from carrying out the consensus of the RfC. The whole point of the RfC was to resolve edit warring and endless argument. Meanwhile, SPECIFICO has started a new section on the Talk page, Screw Saffire, suggesting that William Safire is not a reliable source. The cycle seems to be repeating. If I start an RfC, will I eventually be blocked for carrying out the consensus of the RfC???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Huh? I warned General Goldwater about edit warring, so I don't know what I did to you. The reverts you linked to, the earlier ones, are clearly in line with the RfC. The Goldwater reverts are much broader than the RfC, and their behavior was clearly that of an edit warrior: there are no explanations and no contributions to the talk page, so I have no idea what you're complaining about. As for "perverse"--the only perversion here, besides this twisted complaint, is that ridiculously long talk page. Drmies (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• OK so I'm trying to catch up here. Drmies correctly reversed the edit-warrior Goldwater. Then Darouet came in and reverted Drmies and Darouet claims that Drmies said his intervention applies only when Goldwater makes the edit? Darouet's edit seems like a problem. SPECIFICO talk 00:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Christ, is the content on this page still in dispute? Is this a really contentious and disputed topic, or is there some time-wasting going on? talk to !dave 19:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@My name is not dave: "Content dispute" would be a very charitable description. The phrase is demonstrated in academic sources to be another famous misquotation, but this runs against powerfully entrenched ideological prejudices. So most of the talk page is an effort to ignore real content and make it up with WP:OR. -Darouet (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The latter: wasting time of other contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue is not about Drmies's intervention, but about the editors who keep overriding the RfC. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I was not edit warring and I don't want to be edit warring. I just want the RfC to stand. I don't really understand the eruption of passion on the page, which has been quiet for years. However, at an attempt at DRN last year SPECIFICO and "My very best wishes" argued the issue was not about Communism, even though they had been arguing about Lenin for weeks. From the evidence on the Talk page, it seems they think the issue is about Donald Trump. However, I don't see how attacking the OED helps the cause. From the Talk page, many people are very fond of the idea that Lenin coined the phrase "useful idiot", even though this seems to be just a common misconception. In any case, there is a clear agenda to eliminate sources that dispute the Lenin origin...--Jack Upland (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Issue" really means "outcome", and I'm not even at a beginning in this dispute, but that's by the by. Jack Upland, kindly stop pinging me; I got nothing to do with this business, not until there's some blocking to be done, in which case I will do what I can to get that $5 check for an EW block. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion of Lenin was simply about flawed and poorly-sourced article text -- tendentiously pushed by Jack, Thuc, and Darouet -- that claimed to declare in WP's voice that Lenin never used the term. It had nothing to do with communism any more than song lyrics by Lady Gaga have to do with feminism. SPECIFICO talk 13:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• The problem is easily solved by redirecting to Donald Trump. EEng 21:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

My sense is that there's a linguistic battle between people who want to tie Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin and both to Soviet Russia, and people who want to avoid that tie at all costs. The actual etymology and historical usage of useful idiot (and also whataboutism) are merely a place for that argument. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not think so. The ties are very much real and described in a lot of other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Many people have been called "useful idiots," and Trump is undeniably one of them. I'm not against him being labeled so there as long as that label is balanced by other historically pertinent examples. My objection OR that is being spewed into the article by My very best wishes that is meant to prove that various scholars around the world — who have shown "Useful idiot" to be a misquotation — are wrong. -Darouet (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Strong words to call someone a Trump supporter! I really could not give a damn whether the article calls Trump a useful idiot or not (or a useless idiot). My sole issue is that I think very bad logic is being employed by people who think there is evidence that the term originated in the Soviet Union rather than the west, rather than that it has been traditionally attributed to Lenin without any good evidence. My very best wishes seems to think that an example from a Russian exile in the 80s trumps many prior references that use the term in English well before that, and the OED which contradicts his claims and is a very reputable source for etymology. Further, any source saying that the term was attributed to Lenin is not logically a statement that it actually came from Lenin. Also MVBW seems to have a great deal of trouble understanding what "reflects" means in English despite it being explained many times. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite accurate. I agree that the problems on the page stem from people trying to use quotes (and their etymologies) politically, but I think it's more one-sided than you depict. As far as I can tell, no editors have argued for removing all mention of Donald Trump. For example, I have no problem with the inclusion of Madeleine Albright and Michael Hayden's statements about Donald Trump being a "useful idiot." I've only argued against the inclusion of Michael Morell's quote, because he doesn't even use the term "useful idiot." The "battle" is between people who want to tie Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin and Soviet Russia, and people who don't want the article being used for political purposes. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh my God, you mean the page really does talk about Trump? I didn't even know. I guess great minds think alike. EEng 14:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

For me, the issue has never been about Trump and I don't see the relevance of Trump to the etymology issue. However, that does seem to be part of the motivation for some editors.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: with or without Trump, a lot of linguistic and historical research is spent correcting pervasive misquotations. Wikipedia's mission is not to undo that work on behalf of the latest political fad. -Darouet (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Um, sure, yeah -- though I don't see what I said to prompt that particular principle being expounded at me. EEng 20:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: I'm saying that while I enjoy your humor here [99][100] or elsewhere, the issue that Jack has raised here needs attention and has been annoying AF to deal with. -Darouet (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Definitely agree, and as you'll see on the TP I've offered to obtain obscure sources if that's part of the problem. EEng 21:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jack Upland:You wrote For me, the issue has never been about Trump... This is odd. Because in the garbled DR last year, you said it was only about Trump and also you acknowledged that I said it's not about Communism. What has changed, Jack? SPECIFICO talk 13:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I never said it was only about Trump! In fact, I think Trump should be irrelevant. I don't understand your point on "communism", but it wasn't a very helpful contribution to dispute resolution, as far as I can see.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Somebody want to explain why I and others didn't receive talk page notices of this mess? SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

What's the justification for Darouet continuing to edit war this stuff after this ANI thread was opened? How could that possibly be constructive? And I went to @Drmies: and @My very best wishes: talk pages in stupefied disbelief at Darouet's revert -- not knowing about this thread. Looks like bad form to me. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Jack Upland pinged you in their original post here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

False. No ping. Try again. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

It's not false - you were pinged. Okay, you're unhappy that there wasn't a post left on your user talk page. Jack Upland will know to do that next time. Now you clearly know about the thread, so there's no problem. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Show me the ping? Are you claiming a software malfunction? Cut and paste the ping. SPECIFICO talk 00:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

[101]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

1) You've been on WP a long time. That's not a ping, it's a link to my user page. 2) Many editors do not enable pings. 3) The instructions for this page clearly state that a ping is not OK and that talk page is notification is required. Your responses are an appalling example of your willingness to deny and deflect without any effort to check facts or to listen to the concerns of your fellow editors. SPECIFICO talk 01:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I got a ping - that's what that template does. The rest of your post is just unbelievably hostile. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

That template is a link to User Page. Of course if you took my words seriously, you could easily have checked that by going to the documentation page Nice job ignoring points 2 and 3 and thanks for the personal smear in lieu of response. On a larger issue, you rushed back from your 3-month Russia TBAN to this Russia-related article with walls of POV and personal opinion on the talk page. The result is that all the progress the rest of us made in your absence has devolved into a multi-front edit war based on deflection and WP:IDHT. @My very best wishes: and others have done tons of careful research and clearly presented their results on the talk page. For the most part these findings have been accepted before you and your friend Darouet mushroomed the talk page into a WW1 battlefield. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

From the documentation you linked to: "This template is commonly used to ping a user to a discussion". Looking back at the original diff, it seems like Jack Upland misspelled your username, which is why you didn't get a ping. They corrected your username afterwards, but the template doesn't ping when you correct a username - it has to be correct on the first go. I'm sure Jack Upland will know next time (should there be a next time) to post on your user page, but since you know about the thread here now, everything should be okay. Again, I really don't understand your hostility towards me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

For the third time that's all deflection, Thucydides411, because Ping is not acceptable notification and no user is required to activate ping. You didn't think my concern was software-related, did you? SPECIFICO talk 02:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Look, I give up. I feel sorry for the people who will try to read through this sub-thread. Have a nice day. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure what state the article is in now concerning this subject, but in December 2017 I pointed out that The OED says "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union" and in the same entry quotes "described by the KGB as 'useful idiots'" -- a clear contradiction, one which is unexplained and unclarified, and thus confused and confusing. Moreover, the OED is not an authority on Russian or Russian usage or the USSR. It cannot be used as an authority on Wikipedia as such." [102] and We know for a fact that the term was used by the KGB (please consult the Shultz and Mitrokhin references I referred to earlier in this thread); the KGB was the main security agency for the Soviet Union from 1954 until its break-up in 1991; therefore the peculiar assertion that "The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union" is incorrect. [103] I'm not sure why this is still an ongoing dispute. Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry Softlavender, "reflects" involves something occurring before that which reflects. 1954 (earliest possible date for use by the KGB) is after the use in English. And there is no harm in mentioning what a usually reliable source on etymology says - we are not stating it as a plain fact, just attributing it. To repeat, for the use in English to reflect a use in the Soviet Union we must have evidence that there was use before the use in English. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
    • No, "reflect" is simply a synonym for "be" or "denote"; it means "embody or represent (something) in a faithful or appropriate way". The Soviet Union began in 1922. There are numerous well-researched volumes which are analyses of Soviet Chekist operations and terminology which identify the term (I've listed some on the talkpage). Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
      • "Reflect" is not a direct synonym for "mirror" or "correspond to". In the context of an etymology the question was where does the term originate. Reflects in this sense is equivalent to "comes from" or "originates in". The OED is not stating the term was never used in the Soviet Union. Maybe they could've chosen better wording but it seems clear to me what they intended to say - I could be wrong though. I have to this point not seen anyone provide evidence that it was definitely used in Russian before in English. I will look at your sources. But really are we here because some people are not honoring the results of an already closed RfC which said to include the OED quote. Even if it is false it is relevant to quote what the OED says. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
        • What dictionary are you using? Could you please provide a link to your definition of "reflect"? I quoted the dictionary verbatim. Softlavender (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
          • What you quoted seems to be saying what I'm saying. You don't embody or represent something that only exists after the embodiment or representation. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC) Edited 23:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
            • The Soviet Union began in 1920. So whatever you are trying to say, the OED is saying that the English phrase "useful idiot" does not seem to correspond to any Russian expression used 1920–1991 (i.e., in the Soviet Union) -- which, according to Chekist experts, is incorrect. Softlavender (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
              • No, I am sorry, the nuanced and logical meaning of "reflect" per the definition you quoted is not a synonym for correspond. If the use in English in the 1940s embodies or represents a use in the Soviet Union that must have occurred beforehand. Afterward is not relevant to the statement. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The OED does not contradict itself at all. The OED gives a definition of the term, has a note about the etymology ("The phrase does not seem to reflect any expression used within the Soviet Union"), and then gives example usages of the term, drawn from the literature. The quote, "described by the KGB as 'useful idiots'" is an example usage drawn from a 1985 Washington Post article. The OED does not endorse the veracity of that line from the Washington Post - it's simply an example usage. In fact, not even the Washington Post endorses the veracity of that line. I tracked down the reference, and it turns out that the WaPo is actually mockingly quoting someone who's claiming the KGB calls various people "useful idiots."

I explained this on the talk page: Talk:Useful idiot#OED contradicting itself?. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

People are going out of their way to insist that the OED is infallible (a stance I find incomprehensible, since nothing is infallible, and the OED is frequently easily contradicted in the internet age and GoogleBooks), when the OED itself is tentative: it says "does not seem to reflect", not "is not", and provides a quote which contradicts itself. The OED is not an authority on Chekism and Chekist terminology. Only an authority on Chekism in my view would be the final authority on this, and I've listed several sources on the talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Even if the OED is contradicted by other sources 1) The RfC was already concluded on this to include it 2) It is relevant and interesting to the reader that a usually very reliable source says something on the topic 3) It seems like a form of original research to conclude that another source seems to say something different so the OED is wrong - you would need a source that directly says the OED is wrong, not to draw that conclusion yourself. Analyzing or filtering reliable sources is not the place of Wikipedia editors. If the OED says "does not seem to" it is entirely relevant to quote what it says. The reader can draw their own conclusions whether the source is making a weak statement or if the other sources are more reliable. We are not stating what the OED says as a fact. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. If a source, even a venerable one, is provably wrong, we don't use the source, we use the reliable correct source that has more thorough and accurate and better-researched and better-cited information. Softlavender (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

"If a source, even a venerable one, is provably wrong" I don't see anything new on Talk:Useful idiot that proves the OED is wrong in saying the use in English is not predated by any verifiable use in the Soviet Union. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

For the last time, please stop saying the OED is provably wrong. It's not. I explained this at Talk:Useful idiot#OED contradicting itself? -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

"and provides a quote which contradicts itself." No it does not. Please read what I wrote here: Talk:Useful idiot#OED contradicting itself?. You can't keep making this claim, after I've shown it to be false (complete with the relevant passage from the original Washington Post article that the OED got its snippet from). -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Apologies to everyone for not notifying them on their talk pages.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for close / suggestions of a more appropriate forum

Nobody at ANI has time for this, and apart from the procedural bickering of whether people were notified correctly, this appears to be entirely a content dispute. I request that the thread here be closed and a discussion be opened at the correct forum; presumably WP:DRN or possibly WP:MEDCOM. Assistance from community members who haven't edited the page significantly may be needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it was brought here because people are ignoring an RfC which was already recently decided in favor of including the OED quote. That's disruptive editing. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

That's right. Unfortunately the point has quickly been lost. I think if this was closed, I (or someone else) would have to reintroduce it, and try to do it properly. I started the RfC to stop the endless arguments, but here and now the arguments are being rerun. We need to accept the decision and move on, not continue debating it.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the close of the RfC? It does not require the disputed reference to be used. It simply limits the claims that can be attributed to it. This is what @My very best wishes: and others have followed. Meanwhile the editors who have edit-warred to misuse the source are misrepresenting the RfC close. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The RfC very much does require the OED to be cited. The RfC closer, Fish and Karate, clarified their closure of the RfC, making this explicit: "In closing, the consensus seemed to me to be that the reference to the OED should be included" ([104]). I know you're aware of this, because you expressed disappointment at Fish and Karate's clarification of the RfC closure: "But you had it right the first time..." ([105]).

This gets to the behavioral issue that Jack Upland and DIYeditor talk about above - the refusal to accept the outcome of the RfC. You've been claiming consensus favors your removal of the OED's statement on etymology ("Remove edit-war against consensus" - note that you remove the RfC-compliant OED statement), even though that removal goes against an RfC. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Using the talk page to point out editors' overreaching the close of the RfC to go beyond what its statement does not seem like any sort of "behavioral issue" worth mentioning here. Anyway, I'm in awe of your telepathic abilities that enable you to inform the internet concerning my awareness. The fact is that everyone can read the rest of the thread from which you plucked my words and see where the conversation has stood over the month since then. [106] SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that because I stopped arguing in that thread on 15 February that you had the consensus??? The whole point of the RfC was to decide the debate, not to launch a fresh — or rather stale — round of arguments about the meaning of the RfC. Especially as there were multiple other threads running on the page. I think this is disruptive editing.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Why no, I said nothing of the kind. Not sure where you're going with after the first sentence. SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me put it simply. You are (apparently willfully) being obstinate and disruptive by ignoring a recently closed RfC. Please stop. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain why I address a question to Upland Jack about his statement and I get a quick reply from DIYeditor? Pleased to meet you, anyway. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You didn't ask a question, the reply was 2 hours later, to my knowledge anyone is free to chime in on Wikipedia, and it seems like you are being deliberately difficult. Abide by the RfC or start another one. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Going back to Jack Upland's initial statement in this thread: It looks as if my initial assessment was correct. That RfC, (like this ANI btw) was poorly formed so that his vague and non-instrumental way of framing his question was unlikely to lead to the clear resolution he sought. And that's what happened. We have MVBW, whose view is apparently shared by 1/2 dozen editors, reading the close as supporting a certain article text. And then we have roughly the same number claiming that the RfC close does not support MVBW's way of framing the content. At any rate, you seem to be saying there are 1/2 dozen editors who share your view as to the meaning of the RfC close but wish to ignore or deny it to by inserting article text that contradicts it. But that's not the problem here. The problem is muddle-flagon language and upside-out narratives that are leading to two opposite versions of article text. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Well to be honest I haven't been closely tracking the bickering, I only noticed the OED citation be deleted then restored. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

There has been a LOT of bickering. Thucydides introduced the OED citation back in 2 November. SPECIFICO and MVBW immediately started arguing the point. Then on 10 December I launched the RfC, which was closed on 7 February, with the closure clarified on 12 February. I don't think anyone who was in the debate from the start could have any confusion about what the issue was. The same points have been dealt with multiple times. Though there have been communication problems, there has been ample opportunity for discussion and clarification. Five months on one sentence is ridiculous. Now SPECIFICO appears to be trying to pick a fight with me on the talk page, parallel to this discussion. We all need to abide by the RfC and move on.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Skylax30

Skylax30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have been targeted as anti-chistian and pro-muslim by Skylax30. [107]. Plus a hint that I use sock puppets or canvassing or I have a team backing me. [108]. I did answer [109] only to get back some irony [110]. I am not anti-christian and I do not know much about islam. I respect both religions equally even though I am neither Christian or Muslim. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Since I repeatedly return to that talk page over the last few days, I have to point that your description is slightly inaccurate. Skylax30 did not call you "anti-Christian", he/she called you "anti-religious".

I am not familiar with User:Skylax30. His/her edit history indicates that he/she has been editing Wikipedia since 2010, but he/she never created a User page. Dimadick (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Dimadick for your comment. You are right, he did called me anti-religious, but having add the term "pro-muslim" after that, he implies that I am anti-christian. How can I be anti-religious if I am pro muslim after all? And further more, I am not anti-religious either, I respect all religions. Branding as anti-religious anyone who tries to dealwith religions in a non-mystifying manner, you are actually trying to prevent him from adding knowledge to our common project (Wikipedia or elsewhere) Τζερόνυμο (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"How can I be anti-religious if I am pro muslim after all?" I noticed the contradiction as well, but I have no idea where Skylax30 is coming from. Have you had any previous interactions with him/her? Dimadick (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Can everyone please indent? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of interactions in greek Wikipedia (el.WP), in religion and history related topics. But this is the first in en.WP, which I recently started to contribute. Actually, it is the second, as I have just noticed this one [111], where Skylax30 tries to associate me with muslims. Christian Persecution Complex is my first article in here. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I shouldn't transfer here the Greek "civil war", but Τζερόνυμο is not hiding that he is anti-religious. In his user page in greek language he boasts his contribution to articles about atheism, (he doesn't mention a failed attempt to create a WP portal for atheism) and claims that he is anarchist (but he constantly invokes the Arche (authority) of the admins, crying "personal attack" almost every week in the greek WP). After all, it is not bad to be anti-religious, and not an "attack" to call someone so, if he is. As for the "pro-muslim", since I cannot prove it here because it all happened in Greek (I just indicate his attempt to delete the reference to Middle East in Christian persecution complex), I recall that characterization. Just for the asking, is it bad, and therefore subject of "attack", to be "pro-some-religion" as a WP user? And, yes, you can be anti-religious and pro-muslim at the same time, but I wouldn't expand on that here.--Skylax30 (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no greek civil war here. There is just your insult. Being Atheist doesn't make me anti-religious, it makes me irreligious. The rest are POV plus more personal attacks, trying to name anti-religious so to keep insulting me. I have nothing more to add. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I am a Greek citizen as well, though I rarely use the Greek Wikipedia. May I remind you that Wikipedia:Civility is official policy? "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions." Dimadick (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I do my best Dimadick, but I politely wont accept the label of anti-christian or anti-religious. I consider it defamatory. Plus the insult that I use sock puppets or I work as a member of a team. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Skylax30 has been banned from greek WP (el.WP) for 7 days due to accusations of team work. [112]. It is obvious he is trying to export his fight in en.WP and maybe that explains his comments about team work. [113] Τζερόνυμο (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank Jeronymo, that was most elucidating. I will appreciate if you transfer the english discussion to the greek wp.--Skylax30 (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal - LoveVanPersie

I have just blocked LoveVanPersie (talk · contribs) for repeatedly adding unsourced IPA pronunciations to articles. This seems to be an ongoing and long-term problem - see #Long-term disruptive editing by LoveVanPersie above (I'm starting a new discussion here so it doesn't get lost - feel free to move/merge if you deem it necessary). I therefore propose that LoveVanPersie is indefinitely topic banned from adding IPA pronunciations, even if they are sourced, to all articles. I would also propose a mass rollback of all of his edits related to IPA. GiantSnowman 10:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

No comment on the ban idea, but why would you rollback every edit by someone who's temporarily blocked? Or in other words, why wouldn't you propose a full siteban for someone if all his edits need to be rolled back? I can imagine either ("roll back everything" and "remove permanently") or ("temporary block" and "topic ban") making sense, but someone who needs to have all his edits removed isn't someone who ought to be contributing at all. Nyttend (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I've clarified that I meant rollback edits related to this topic. GiantSnowman 12:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I've reviewed this editor's edits in more detail, and am struggling to find anything that isn't IPA related - perhaps a site ban is justified, and a mass rollback is (IMHO) certainly is, given the concerns shared by multiple editors about this editor's editing and sourcing. GiantSnowman 13:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Also no comment on the ban idea, but User:LoveVanPersie in the last edit provided references (and provided references increasingly, though arguably not sufficient in the first edits). I don't think it is a good idea to block an editor who you are reverting and who is trying to address your concerns - and I get the feeling from the above discussion that the concerns are controversial in the first place. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: he's not trying to address any concerns, he is trying to add IPA based on some mis-belief that that a language's "standard" pronunciation applies to everyone, regardless of where they are from. Would you give someone from Texas a New York IPA? They repeatedly added the same material, first unsourced, then sourced to random Wikipedia articles, then sourced to a website which gives 38 (!!!) different pronunciations of the same word... GiantSnowman 12:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: so you basically confirm that IPA is a controversial topic??? So I still think it is a bad idea to block an editor with whom you are editwarring over such a controversial subject, who is trying to address your concerns (but clearly not to your liking of addressing). —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: no, I blocked an editor with a long history of adding un-sourced and poorly sourced content to BLPs (that happens to be IPA) and ignoring warnings. BTW if you want to accuse me of being WP:INVOLVED then just come out and say it...FWIW two admins (@Yamla and Yunshui:) have already reviewed the block. GiantSnowman 15:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I am not accusing you of being 8nvolved, because that is a too strong a word. I see an editor who is trying to improve (see also thread above), but gets reverted and reverted without an attempt to work together to solve the problem, and without a clear indication on how to use IPA (that is how I digest the above thread). Many throughout Wikipedia are unsourced, but apparently this editor is forced to properly source because other people, apparently, have said sources to show he is wrong. All I see is people stating LVP is wrong because LVP cannot source, without sources to show what is right. And yes, I know my WP:V and WP:RS. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: I'm not required to teach phonetics to him. WP:COMPETENCE is required to edit Wikipedia. I've already spent hours and hours helping him - see my talk page. Even if that weren't the case, I still feel that my message would be justified. Mr KEBAB (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: I know you are not required. But I still have the feeling that this whole bickering is about something that is not an editor problem per sé (as also noted in above thread), but a lack of guidance and direction (but that is not strange to Wikipedia - we tie things to the editor, not necessarily to the problem). This situation is very similar to what we once ran into at the chemicals/chemistry WikiProject, and it is in the grey area between '1 + 1 = 2' and '0.999999999... = 1' .. both are 'simple mathematics' (agreed, the latter controversial) - but where do you draw a line between the two, do you mention them with a SYNTHESIS-source, do you mention them without a source, or do you chose to omit them completely. And I have been, in that case, close to bringing the editor to ANI over it. Here it is the same - do we need a source on it in the first place (WP:MOS/Pronunciation does not mention it - David Aardsma .. originally Dutch surname from the same area in NL where I am from, I would not pronounce that a z as in zoom, but an s as in sun - it lacks a reference since it addition in 2010/2012), where nearly every source amounts to (a certain amount of) synthesis (the number of ways people pronounce my given name and my surname .. ), or should we not mention them at all? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: See [114] and User talk:LoveVanPersie#Miloslav Mečíř Jr. and judge for yourself whether LVP was guided properly.

The reason he's making so many mistakes in his transcriptions is that he's overvaluing his listening skills and because he doesn't read specialized literature, which he doesn't read because his English isn't good enough. In such situations you don't really guide people as much as you just do their job for them. We both know what tends to happen to people who do that in real world, don't we? :)

Transcriptions linking to Help:IPA/X guides generally should always follow said guides which always (well, nearly always) follow reputable sources. When you transcribe something into IPA it doesn't mean that every symbol has to be taken completely literally. I mean, look at Help:IPA/Danish and Danish phonology - most symbols for the unrounded front vowels are seriously wrong when taken literally. The name of Hans Jørgen Uldall isn't really pronounced [hans jɶɐ̯n̩ ˈuldæːˀl] but [hæns jœɒ̯n̩ ˈultɛːˀl] (or even [hɛns -]). There are levels of narrowness to IPA transcriptions. Phonemic transcriptions (those enclosed within slashes /.../) are almost always broad, but phonetic transcriptions (enclosed within square brackets [...]) may be narrow, broad, or anything in between ("semi-narrow"). Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: Sorry, I was slightly unclear. My 'guidance and direction' was more Wikipedia-wide, not to the people trying to guide/direct. The bickering is about the person, while Wikipedia does not have proper IPA guidance for the names of persons (where two Dirks in one street may have different pronounciations). It works for 'banana', it does not work for 'Dirk' (the given name). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

His transcriptions have a rather high margin of error, especially when it comes to correctly identifying stressed syllables in Spanish. I don't think there's anything controversial in my original post. Maybe I should've omitted more trivial mistakes, but then again - he's making lots of them.

There also are French, Portuguese and Basque transcriptions of his that I'm unable to check. The issue could be even bigger than we think. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

His edits are all either unsourced or poorly sourced, and all relate to IPA, particularly for BLPs. This is seriously concerning. GiantSnowman 14:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support Tban 6 months or indef for all IPAs, or just BLP IPAs, until they can demonstrate they know how to proerly add and source IPAs. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban (disclaimer: I was pinged above, but I've only been in casual contact with LVP). I think it's fairly obvious action – when someone shows they're unable to get it despite repeated and kind appeals and error-pointing, forcefully stopping them seems to be the only answer.
  As a side issue, in practice we have rather lax requirements for sourcing of pronunciations: any native speaker in the know or a trained linguist can write them based on a sound record or regularity of orthography (so I don't think WP:CRYBLP is in order), but LVP has soundly demonstrated a lack of competence in the area and should be stopped for that reason only. No such user (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBan, 6 months or indef for all IPAs. This comment ("Every IPA I added has been confirmed on YouTube and Forvo.") combined with claiming Wikipedia articles count as reliable sources, indicates to me this user hasn't read or doesn't understand WP:RS. I tried pointing them to WP:RS, apparently at least the fourth time they've been pointed to that policy. But they don't appear to have noticed yet. --Yamla (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (at least for now). Mainly per above thread and common practice. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban but oppose block rationale even though I don't mind the block itself. I defer to Mr KEBAB about whether LVP's IPA edits should be rolled back en masse.

  Blocking a disruptive SPA on competence grounds is fine. But unsourced? Give me a break, IPA is just a written transcription of how words are pronounced. LVP's IPA problem wasn't that his transcriptions were unsourced, it's that they were wrong.

  I trust Wikipedia editors to know how words in their native languages are pronounced (except in rare cases of genuine doubt) just like I trust them to be able to distinguish grammatical sentences in their native languages from ungrammatical ones, a task historically very difficult for grammarians to explicate precisely, and which is still beyond the reach of computers. And I trust our resident IPA weenies to be able to check transcriptions of spoken pronunciation into IPA orthography just like I trust our content contributors to spell words correctly (even if there's an occasional error).

  The last thing I want is Wikipedia's WP:RS goon squads tag bombing IPA transcriptions all over the project. Next we'll get a tag next to every sentence in every article asking for citations that that the sentence is grammatical, and a tag next to every word asking for a link to an external RS saying that the word is spelled correctly. Stop this, just stop it, IPA is (usually) part of the presentation and not part of the content, and as such it's something that we have to get right on our own.

  Also, Youtube is a perfectly good and useful RS for pronunciations. I've used it a few times to cite how people pronounce their own names: see Ronda Rousey as an example of this. The IPA in her biography lede links to a Youtube video of her introducing herself by name at the beginning of a TV show. We're in a mad bureaucracy if we think a video of her pronouncing her own name in a TV studio is unreliable. The subtlety that Dirk Beetstra ran into is about regional pronunciations: e.g., if we want an IPA transcription of a German word, we'd normally want Standard German (the dialect of Northern Germany) so we shouldn't transcribe it from a video of Arnold Schwarzenegger saying the word even though he has a cool accent, because his native dialect is Austrian. It's all contextual. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Unless we find people who can check all the transcriptions he's put into WP articles, then rolling them back is the only alternative. LVP has proven not to care about quality but quantity.

I also mostly agree with the rest of your post, I just didn't say it because I didn't want to start an argument (and I'm not saying that's what you're doing). But I also understand when someone considers WP:RS to be more important. I don't find this an easy issue. Mr KEBAB (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying RS should be an issue iff there's real significant doubt, which is usually not the case. We should otherwise rely on our editors' linguistic competence, at least for their own languages. This particular incident was because of LVP trying to write IPA for languages in which he wasn't competent. Most editors aren't silly enough to attempt things like that, at least after they've been called on mistakes a few times. So this was unusual and we shouldn't go into an RS tizzy over it. I hope that makes sense. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This is roughly what I mean above. IPA's seem to be poorly sourced, controversial, and often amount to synthesis. WP:MOS/Pronunciation is not mentioning sourcing requirements, WP:IPA does not mention sourcing requirements. Does this require sourcing in the first place, or does this amount to a high level of WP:SYNTHESIS by definition and therefor it should neither be sourced, nor mentioned unless there is a direct, independent source for the specific case (my name, Dirk, is pronounced in different ways depending on the mother tongue of the person pronouncing it (or even, 'mother dialect'), and there is no set pronunciation). It simply doesn't work, and there are hardly any proper references that do not amount to synthesis in most cases. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't remember other controversies/disputes like this one. There's nationalistic disputes like Kiev vs Kyiv (same name in two dialects), but there's no disagreement about how to pronounce either version. No US English speaker will have trouble figuring out "Donald Trump"'s pronunciation from its spelling (even if they'd never heard someone else pronounce it), so the idea that the IPA for it should have to be externally sourced is absurd. For a Dutch name like yours, I don't have reason to doubt (unless you say otherwise) that I can trust Dutch-speaking Wikipedians to either confidently get it right, or recognize that there is uncertainty and look for a source (like the contributors to Ronda Rousey's biography weren't sure if the s in her last name was voiced or unvoiced, thus the link to the youtube clip).

Omitting the pronunciation info altogether is terrible too. It damages the encyclopedia's usefulness for the sake of bureaucracy. It might not matter for Trump, but for articles like Zbigniew Brzezinski or Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy the pronunciation info is very helpful. Those articles have audio clips of Wikipedian speakers of the relevant languages saying the names. Are you telling me those audios are SYNTH, and if I made an audio pronouncing "Donald Trump" or "California" (the state where I live) it would similarly be SYNTH? If we rejected Wikipedian pronunciations of "California" and wanted genuine RS for it, where would we even look? How about an authority like the top leader of the state government? Oh whoops, until recently that would have been former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and (trust me) a clip from him would have been less encyclopedically sound than a clip from me (though it would have been badass).

In some hairsplitting philosophical sense the editor pronunciations might be SYNTH, but pursuing the SYNTH concept that far would be bureaucracy gone nuts. We're trying to write a practical encyclopedia and our sourcing practices are supposed to serve that goal, not give it hoops to jump through. So I always want there to be more of those audios (and IPA is just transcription of audio) and I'm glad when Wikipedians make them. If you were to do some Dutch ones I'd be delighted.

We should not be looking for more places to turn our bureaucracy loose. We should be looking for ways to stuff it back into the can. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@173.228.123.121: The SYNTH argument is why we more-or-less dropped systematic naming in chemical compounds - it is mathematically straightforward .. and not. And this is more fragile than that, as I say above, my name is pronounced slightly different depending on the mother tongue of the pronouncer. I agree, for Donald that is not going to change too much, though even there the length of the o and a could change. Anyway, the first revert says 'unsourced'. That suggests that the original is controversial, and needs a proper WP:RS (or is it a my synth against your synth?). I would ask the same for the surname of David Aardsma - a clear North-Dutch-origin surname, where I would pronounce an 's' sound (as in sun), but the article puts a 'z' sound (as in zoom). There are a lot of cases there where I think the pronunciation is controversial. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

And I would argue that the revert based solely on sourcing grounds was a very WP:DICKish thing to do. It does not suggest that the original is controversial, but merely that the reverter is a member of, quote, WP:RS goon squads tag bombing IPA transcriptions all over the project. Bizarrely enough, that particular IPA by LVP seem to have been correct. But we're straying off-topic for ANI now, I would support anyone hatting this subthread. No such user (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The IPA was correct. Mr KEBAB (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

He is currently spamming various talk pages with threads about IPA transcriptions and how they should be fixed. He already made two mistakes: [115], [116]. Should that be viewed as ignoring the topic ban? Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The topic ban has not been formerly introduced - can an uninvolved admin please review and close? GiantSnowman 08:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Mass rollback

• @Mr KEBAB: you're the editor who originally raised this IPA issue a week ago - what are your views on a mass rollback? GiantSnowman 08:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @GiantSnowman:As I said above, Unless we find people who can check all the transcriptions he's put into WP articles, then rolling them back is the only alternative.

I'll also note that LVP said on his talk page that I corrected all of his transcriptions, which is obviously untrue. Mr KEBAB (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Kharon—WP:EW and WP:CIR

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

I've brought this here rather than WP:EWN because this user's recent edits are problematic for a number of reasons. Besides the edit-warring, there is in my opinion a clear WP:COMPETENCE issue. This user is immune to my advice, so I'd like someone else to explain that his behaviour is inappropriate:

• User:Kharon mistakenly argued that "free speech" was a basis for retaining some commentary he liked on the Mont Pelerin Society article on the 9th March. His reasons for supporting the inclusion of this material amounted to little more than his personal opinion of several people mentioned in the course of the article.
• When I pointed out that Wikipedia has a policy on this (WP:NOTFREESPEECH), User:Kharon arrogantly responded that because he joined English Wikipedia in 2013, he has "stopped reading rules other wikipedians point [him] to", because he has apparently "read them all".
• When I respond to this silliness (which perhaps I ought to have done on his user page), he repeatedly attempts to delete my comments from the article talk page, even when it is explained to him that he can't do this (WP:TPO): first occasion, second occasion, third occasion, fourth occasion, fifth occasion.
• User:Kharon later makes a useful contribution to the article, but unfortunately encloses a reference to the Nobel Prize for Economics in inverted commas, explaining later in an edit summary that this is because: "its not really a true Nobel Prize" [sic]. And yes, I am familiar with the history of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should express an opinion on the validity of the award by referring to it in inverted commas. User:Kharon then inserts a reference to a book in which the Nobel Prize for Economics is also referred to in inverted commas, completely missing the point, as I clearly explain here.
• User:Kharon then proceeds to edit war over the inclusion of the inverted commas:

1. [117] 15:09 20 March
2. [118] 15:53 20 March
3. [119] 22:36 20 March
4. [120] 00:56 21 March

I warned them here that they had violated 3RR, but they refused to self-revert. I didn't template them because they are obviously aware of WP:EW. In hindsight, I ought to have stopped reverting at 2R, but in my defense the situation was quite frustrating—and although I stopped at 3R—I will make a mental note not to join-in in future.

• User:Kharon then proceeded to argue that WP:3RR doesn't apply to him, because he's removing a "form of Wikipedia:Vandalism", which he will "always try to fix, no matter how often"—which strongly implies that he will resume the edit-warring when he next logs in.

You can find the whole exchange here and here, for context. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I am open to different opinions and always ready to correct my views and contributions but in this case i added first class sources and the contained critique about the so called "Nobel Prize" in Economic Sciences is simply correctly cited. I did not add anything! Its all 1:1 from the sources! I did combine 2 sources with the same critique by adding the quote marks as used in the second source. The critique seems to be revolting to some of my fellow wikipedians but it seems a needed correction of the pretension this Society likely hoped to gain by getting its "foot" into the Nobel Prize "brand". I honestly think it is a better article with this critical point of view added. I plan to add some more points soon. With very good sources of course. --Kharon (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

You just don’t get it. The criticism is fine, the inverted commas, and all the other behavioural problems/edit-warring are not. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate that this may not be very interesting, but someone should at least address the WP:EDIT-WARRING to avoid validating this behaviour. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I left a warning on User:Kharon's talk page. They may be blocked if they revert again at Mont Pelerin Society without getting a talk page consensus first. In my opinion, this warning is a sufficient action to allow this ANI thread to be closed, unless another admin wants to do more. EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Constant OR/SYN at Battlestar (reimagining)

Furious Buddha has been adding extremely lengthy swathes of original research and synthesis to the page Battlestar (reimagining); as well as off-topic material relating to the 1978 TV series. I've left several messages on their talk page asking them to stop, and tried to be as descriptive as possible in my edit summaries reverting it. But it does not seem to have helped. The edit history of that page is rather embarrassing to look at, tbh - perhaps I should have asked for help sooner. One problem is that this user's efforts began nearly a year ago, but I didn't notice the content until much later. I don't seem to be getting through. How should I handle this kind of thing better in the future? ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User notified. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yikes, that entire article needs to be gutted. It's a ridiculous mass of OR and Synth as you state. Lines such as "The exact layout and size of Galactica's flight pods is unknown, but is clear from analysis of pictures they have a 1:6 (width:length) ratio.", "This would mean Galactica's flight decks are at least 200-feet, probably closer to 250–300 feet or so in width, roughly the same a Gerald Ford class aircraft carrier.", "Based on this evidence we can assume a flight pod is at least 500–600 feet in overall width, and 3,000–3,600 feet or so in length." Yes, most of the article is pure original research and has no place on Wikipedia. Furious Buddha should be given one last warning over this, and the article trimmed down to referenced material only. Canterbury Tail talk 17:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Zenswashbuckler, you've no need to be be embarrassed. We appreciate both your valiant attempts to reason with the user and your alert here. You have spent a lot of time on this, so thank you. I have given Furious Buddha a final warning. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC).

Yes Zen, you've done nothing wrong. You've tried and you've been patient with this user which is much appreciated, but it's quite clear they don't get what an encyclopaedia is or how Wikipedia works. I think they'd be better off in some fan wiki somewhere. Canterbury Tail talk 22:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Sinceprecisely none of the content of that ridiculous collection of fancruft belongs in an encyclopaedia, I suggest that the article be summarily deleted, and all of the 'contributors' be told to find some other location for their nitpicking obsessions. 86.131.45.175 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced edits by Baderjf

I'm starting this thread following NeilN's suggestion [121]. Baderjf (talk · contribs) does not seem to understand what "adding sources" mean and they continue making unsourced modifications. Diffs:

• At King Fahd International Airport [122] [123]
• At Flynas [124] [125].

Please also note that, regarding the addition of unsourced content, the user had been given a final warning at their talk in 2016. --Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Rollback, Passing Judgement and Threats to Block

In the Proto-Indo-European homeland article, I have made some additions with multiple authentic citations and references but editor User:Joshua Jonathan is repeatedly removing the content I added without even trying to build a consensus or providing valid reasons. The user is trying to make a personal judgement and interpretation on the content and even warning to block me. I would appreciate if the content is discussed and agreed upon rather than passing judgement and threats. ---User talk:Truthteller301

• Apparently your additions are a WP:FRINGE theory. I suggest you discuss the issue with User:Joshua Jonathan on the article talk page rather than here, since that is the normal procedure. The discussion is already started (Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland#"Truthteller") so please, discuss at the correct venue. Also your behaviour is hardly innocent, you have sent warning templates to Joshua Jonathan rather than simply discussing the issue, which it seems has been dealt with before, and there is an existing consensus against your edits, to change this you would have to get a new consensus. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Truthteller301 is ignoring concencus, re-inserting text which was objected to by several senior editors, and copying info from other articles plus WP:OR to give WP:UNDUE attention to a WP:FRINGE theory; see Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland#"Truthteller". See also User talk:Truthteller301 for an appreciation of his behavior in his short Wiki-career. NeilN may like to comment here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• <<ec>>@Truthteller301: You have already been noticed regarding Discretionary Sanctions. I would be very careful right now. It seems to be you are misrepresenting matters here.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I would appreciate if User:Joshua Jonathan would discuss the section with me and not make a judgement on what is fringe and what is valid. I am open to constructive discussions on the content but User:Joshua Jonathan is engaging in passing judgement and threats. He has done the same with editors like User talk:Gioferri. ---[[User talk:Truthteller301]]

He isn't making judgement, he is simply upholding consensus. It seems you don't like that and have been abusing him to try and get your prefered edits reinstated. As far as Gioferri is concerned, reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagetae would be of help. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Truthteller301's abusive post on JJ's page suggests they have a competence issue, as well as being here to promote a fringe theory. If you continue to attack people you will be sanctioned for personal attacks, Truthteller. (Well, unless an admin blocks you indefinitely for disruptive editing first.) Telling a constructive and and experienced editor such as JJ that they're not here to build an encyclopedia is serious as well as ridiculous. Did you even read WP:NOTHERE? Please don't throw policies in people's faces at random. And, as the Prince of Thieves says, please don't take content disagreements to WP:ANI, that's not what this board for; discuss on the article's talkpage or use dispute resolution. This section can be closed IMO, unless somebody wants to issue a boomerang. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC).

Bishonen, Instead of lecturing me on what is ridiculous, you should go through not here to build an encyclopedia, Does is allow intimidation and threats ?. What abusive post and attacks are you referring to ? I asked him for proof and reasons. If you cannot come up with valid counter arguments about the content I added then you are here just to defend your friend and nothing else. Provide the sources and references which definitively disprove the genetic evidence I cited, don't argue for argument sake. --User talk:Truthteller301

Unwitting Sheeple

Prince of Thieves

A guy with a username with some variation of "truther" spouting nonsense about fringe theories? Color me shocked! Honestly, do these folks think they are clever with their usernames? They end up looking like the sheeple they claim to be fighting against. Ya ain't as clever as you think you are. --Tarage (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, It's clear who is who. Instead of talking about my name, can you argue against the content I posted, apparently not. I seems you all only follow the intimidation and name calling strategy. If you cannot counter the content point by point then you are definitely not as clever as you think you are.--User talk:Truthteller301

I've a boomerang in my back pocket that I've been thinking about pulling out since this started. Truthteller301, you seem here to argue and pick fights. That is NOTHERE. Not telling you what is or is not constructive. And you would do well to not lecture someone like Bishonen. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Johnathan is not making the fringe judgement. That is the consensus of the community. You might wish to peddle your wares at one of the WP:alternative outlets.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one about to be blocked buddy. If you're so bloody clever why are you completely unable to enact the change you and yours want? Is it, like, the system, man? The sheeple leading the flock? How butthurt are you going to be when you don't get your way? --Tarage (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Truthteller301 was very close to being sanctioned in the BLP area per this exchange. If they're making similar "very appropriate edits and changes" in other areas then that's a concern. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please consider as posted: old saw about accounts with "truth" in the name. See WP:RGW Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Truthteller301: You're the one who has started the trouble, both your new account and the old one Truthprevailsalways (talk · contribs). Read WP:POV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:WEIGHT. And don't shoot yourself in the foot by posting reports like this one. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Permanent topic ban

For serial violations of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTTHERAPY, I would like that Special:Contributions/212.42.186.84 (FastNet International Ltd, Wokingham, UK) and Special:Contributions/209.93.13.37 (INFONET Services Corporation, Farnham, UK) receive a permanent topic ban from all articles concerning East Europe and its history.

Copy/paste from User talk:NeilN

209.93.13.37 has issued another personal attack ("jealous Hungarian"), he learned nothing from his two previous blocks for violating WP:NPA. Greetings, Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: You'll need to provide a diff but that's a pretty mild aspersion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's [126], but if you consider it mild, no block is required. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The IP is a serial abuser: "undo your stupid changes" [127], "so dial down the pride, would you?" [128]. It seems like he has en enduring WP:CIVIL issue. Also "How dumb do you have to be? You're a no one. People way superior to you have written those things, yet you refuse to accept them, as does the other moron. Ooo, big deal, you're going to ban me for a month of something, who cares..." [129]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

End copy/paste.

"then why don't you get off your lazy butt and put it in whatever order or format you like" [130], "If so, go slap yourself you clueless moron!" [131]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: for future reference you can use the {{Talk quote inline}} and {{Talk quote}} templates to quote more effectively. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you topicban an IP? --Tarage (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Their past IP: Special:Contributions/81.3.111.10 (Timico Limited, Farnham, UK). Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Not what I meant. If the IP changes constantly, I don't think you're going to be able to 'topic ban' an IP. It's not going to stick. --Tarage (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• I just blocked the IP for one month. This is the 3rd block in 2018. They are also editing on the Romanian Wikipedia, but some other admin needs to look at that, if necessary. — Maile (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Per WP:DUCK and geolocation Special:Contributions/212.42.186.84 is the same person. They edit the same article upon roughly the same subjects, at roughly the same time (differences are of several hours) from roughly the same location. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Both the article and its talk page have been semi-protected for one month. If the situation reoccurs after the protection is removed, you are welcome to either post here again, or at WP:RFPP for another protection. — Maile (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Clear WP:HOUND from User:Oleola

User:Oleola entered a discussion with me about Ermedin Demirović's appearances in Alavés B. Even though I explained to him there was no way to completely adding the sources to the apps (per talk page), he still reverted me continuely and accused me of "personally attacking" him (also explained in the talk page). However, he is now hounding me and reverting all my edits without any proper explanation. This seems to me that he/she has taken it personally and can't verify anything that comes from me without reverting or trying to create a bunch of edit wars. MYS77 ^✉ 21:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The disputed edits appear to be about maintenance tags on articles about football players, an area which both editors have contributed significantly before. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Power~enwiki: It's not about maintenance tags, it's about Oleola only reaching this very own website to use it as a battleground and start unnecessary edit wars because he thinks it's cool. MYS77 ^✉ 10:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

User MYS77 is not sourcing all information he is adding into the articles. I just quickly look at some of his recent contributions and added maintenance tags, mainly citation needed for unsourced data I noticed, also corrected some stats per what sources say. However it seems that MYS77 reverted all my recent edits. I don't know what he want to achieve, he was many times informed that all data should be sourced per WP:VER, most recently in this discussion Talk:Ermedin_Demirović but apparently, he don't want to follow Wikipedia core policy.--Oleola (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Oleola: Mate, I've explained every one of my edits to you, but you are still reverting me without any single explanation, just "not sourcing all". I don't know if you noticed, but 90% of this whole encyclopedia is feeded by some users who, even when they don't have a single source to prove it, they put time and effort to gather information and insert it here. If you're not understand this, then please show some respect to other people's hard work. Thank you. MYS77 ^✉ 02:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that many content on Wikipedia is unsourced doesn't mean that you are free to add further unsourced content and then personal attacking users who challenge them per WP:CHALLENGE. Simply start to provide sources, using inline references for all content you're adding.--Oleola (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I provided every damn source and explanation to you in all my edits. If this isn't enough then you should go ahead and do some research here. I found your edits very disrespectful to all my effort to gather information and I'm waiting to have some real input. @Quite A Character:, @GiantSnowman:, @Number 57:, @Mattythewhite: inputs please. MYS77 ^✉ 10:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Adding more input to the case: Oleola seems to be involved in a lot of incidents when it comes to 3RR or edit wars:

1. Here he was the first offender, but was not reported somehow;
2. Here, he couldn't stop on reverting the guy even after the other user gave up...
3. Here the IP who reported him tried to establish a type of conversation, no replies, just some more reverts...
4. Just check his recent edits (all of them reverting my work) on my creations Gustavo Dulanto, Álex Collado, Victor Yan and Alejandro Marqués... If this is not a clear HOUND I don't know what hound is then. MYS77 ^✉ 02:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what's your point in bringing these old closed cases here, but let's stick to the current. Your constat omitting of Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'm bringing here User:MYS77 recent edit[132] Firstly we see personal attacks in edit summary. I gave him final warning yesterday[133] Also I paid attention to his behavior here Talk:Ermedin Demirović. Earlier he also personal attacked user who asked him for source[134]. That's a first thing. Now let's see the content of this recent edit[[135]. MYS77 added stats for Brazil U17 and Brazil U20 national teams along with alleged years of play. However this link he posted in edit summary(he don't use an inline citation as he should per WP:VER) says only that Dodô "also served the U-17 and U-20 teams" there is nothing in espn.com.br article about number of appearances/goals for Brazil U17 and Brazil U20 and nothing about years in which he could play in these teams. So MYS77 added again an unsourced material, depite I gave him two warnings to stop such actions, including final one[136][137]. The same type of unreferenced content he added also in Guilherme Nunes[138] and Iago Maidana[139] --Oleola (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as I've been pinged even though I'm not been involved with this article previously - @MYS77: please can you provide a reliable source which confirms the player stats, and then @Oleola: please can you clearly state why the source is not sufficient? GiantSnowman 11:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I've explained to him that I accessed deportivoalaves.com and was counting the player's apps according to the club's match reports. It would be very unwise to add 12 references to the article only to prove that the stats are correct. I did this with Victor Yan, Guilherme Nunes, Iago Maidana and so on (as a lot of other users work here and get no complaints nor reverts), but I was blindly reverted and harrassed (see my talk page, this is his fourth "warning" within 24 hours or so). MYS77 ^✉ 12:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Plus, I've added some references in Victor Yan and Maidana to prove that I was not wrong in my approach. Oleola lacks WP:AGF and should be warned for using Wikipedia as a battleground. This is not the correct way to work within the project. MYS77 ^✉ 12:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

You did't directly add references in Yan[140] and Maidana[141], you just post links in edit comments. You must provide it as inline citation directly into the article per WP:BURDEN.--Oleola (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman, one questionable source seems to be in Gustavo Dulanto. MYS77 claims that whole youth career is covered by ref#1[142] I do not see any text there that would confirm it. Also I don't think that linkedin profile MYS77 posted in his edit comment is WP:RS[143]. And what is most important per WP:BURDEN he should use an inline citations, not just posting links in edit comment. I don't see also any source for alleged Guilherme Nunes 5 matches apps for Brazil U20, and MYS77 recently reinstaed this stats[144].--Oleola (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Oleola: You have to understand that Brazilian websites don't count appearances, you have to dig in to get correct data. I was doing it and you are reverting it, without proving it wrong. I'm showing a lot of ways to prove these stats right, with you simply ignoring them. I will wait to see if anyone has some external opinions here, there's no point in discussing when we have different approaches (even though both can be seen as correct). MYS77 ^✉ 14:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

For the hundredth time you must prove (by adding inline citations) that stats are correct per WP:BURDEN, not me that they are incorrect. I'm not saying that all stats you added were incorrect, they were unsourced. And you should provide inline citations for them, like for Guilherme Nunes U20 caps which are still unsourced[145]. And i don't think that you counted caps for Dodo in your recent edit[146], because I checked all U20 lineups from 2009 and he didn't play any match. It's very unlikly that he played in 2012, since target tournaments for players born in 1991 and 1992 ended in 2011.--Oleola (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Oleola: You checked all U20 official lineups, I assume he played on friendlies. I can't confirm it but I was assuming good faith because of the very same ref I provided you (this was not the only one who actually said that he played for both NT sides)... Anyway, taking a quick look at your own talkpage, you seem to be very punchy when it comes to youth NT caps, right? A few fights here and there related to some apps here and there...

Don't know what you're trying to achieve with these discussions, but if you show more teamwork I do assure you that editing in here would be more pleasant. And even if you don't want to work with others, I do recommend you to talk instead of simply reverting people here and there. People spend their time here to improve some things that you're simply "destroying". Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 16:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I quickly flew through U20 squads from 2016 and it seems that it's unlikly that Guilherme Nunes played in 5 matches. And you says that you are counting stats and want to be trusted to put own WP:OR without a source. No, I rather stick to what reliable sources says. Instead of studying messages on my talk page, maybe you'll finally add an inline references to above mentioned articles. BTW Dodo didn't play in friendlies.--Oleola (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Oleola: Sources were already in the page regarding his U17 stats, he played five matches in a period of some months, while played three for the U20s in 2016 whithin a month. You seem to lack the ability to search for sources properly, then you throw all of your frustration back at other users... Anyway, I was not the one "threatening" other users in my talk page at first attempt, right? Aaaand you forgot to mention me in the conversation, again. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 13:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You said that you counted stats and without a source was constantly adding 5 U20 caps for Nunes [147], and now it turns out that he in fact played only 3 matches. So stop going out with another personal teasing, because you seem to be frustrated, not me. About that ping thing, please don't mark me in your messages here, since they began to be more and more charged with personal comments towards me. Comment on content, not on the contributor WP:NPA. I don't need to be alterted, and answer to them immediately, since I use Wikipedia also for other purposes than editing and pulling endless discussions with user who don't want to adapt to main Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY and make a big problem when it comes to add references for unsourced content. Now accusing me also of unfounded threatening which did not take place, just standard messages in the case of inappropriate behavior or disruptive editing. I'm posting a link so everybody can see your reactions to this messages[148] And at the end, you bring here your friend User:Quite A Character, he told you that you should add inline references to the articles instead of edit summary, which is required per WP:BURDEN. You're still ignoring it[149]. What's more to add here?--Oleola (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

My two cents: yes User:MYS77, it's preferable to add the sources to the body of article instead of in the edit summary. However, User:Oleola, don't you agree that in some cases we could/should embrace WP:BOLD (for example, the youth clubs of Carlitos (Spanish footballer) in which you removed the years)? About MYS changing the birth place he originally had added in Demirovic, nothing wrong with that I believe, he just found a better and more reliable source :)

You are both experienced users, I am sure a consensus can be reached. --Quite A Character (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

But MYS77 didn't change birth place in Demirovic, he just restored the whole edit made by sockpuppet of block evading user HankMoodyTZ. And birth place was one of unsourced change that HankMoodyTZ made in Demirovic in his edit. So no, MYS77 didn't find any better source.--Oleola (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I apologize User:Oleola, thread was too long and i must have confused myself along the reading. Speaking of sources, i found tons of them that only say he was brought through Hamburger's youth system, not that he was born there. Also, this one (https://www.vavel.com/es/futbol/2017/06/20/alaves/800141-demirovic-el-gol-viene-de-bosnia.html, i think Vavel is reliable) says he was born in Bosnia, without stating the place.

Sorry for any inconvenience --Quite A Character (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The content dispute at Talk:Ermedin Demirović isn't relevant at this forum, and the general question on acceptable sourcing for statistics is probably better handled by WP:WikiProject Football. I don't see anything actionable; and suggest that both editors accept a WP:TROUT, try to leave each other alone, and move on without any other administrative action. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Mate, I never bothered Oleola at any point. Just tried to carry on editing even with the dispute on Demirović. He, in the other hand, started a hound and reverted me countless times in other pages that I was currently editing/creating. That's why I created this thread. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 04:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I made appropriate edits in harmony with Wikipedia core policy WP:VERIFY by correcting data per current sources and placing ciation needed tags in the articles for the content which is not sourced. And I directly pointed by tag which data should be sourced. It was you MYS77 who reverted all my edits without adding a references, so don't say that I was reverting you.--Oleola (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Pro-burmese, nationalist, disruptive editing, copyvios and spam

Special:Contributions/103.233.205.57 seems to be here to promote the country of Burma and its military, or various websites, removing human rights abuses in the country from an article [150], posting many copyvios that seem to be pure spam, or posting spammy external links. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Identity Evropa

• Identity Evropa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article is under pending revisions, so there's no rush, but it looks to me as if there's socking going on with both accounts and IPs: compare the length and quality of edit summaries from various editors. Can someone take a look, or should I file a formal SPI? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Page is now semiprotected six months by User:Acroterion. Even with semi in place, if we continue to notice aggressive editing from newly registered accounts there might be a case for WP:ECP. In spite of its European-sounding name this is an American group so WP:ARBAP2 applies. If you check the edit history you'll already notice several new accounts that have been indef blocked by various admins. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

<ec> I semi-protected before I saw this because the volume of major revisions to the organization's stated ideology, with attendant removals of references, is beyond what PC is intended to manage. There is a steady stream of new accounts making significant changes along similar lines. I'm inclined to think its meatpuppets coming from off-site. The volume of edits and their scope have picked up substantially over the past couple of days. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Content dispute, NPA, & AGF at Militia Act of 1903

I would like to inform of an editing situation relating to the article Militia Act of 1903. This involves Billmckern (talk · contribs), Springee (talk · contribs), Trekphiler (talk · contribs), myself, and IP editors since December 2015. Since December 2015, Billmckern has editing the article in an attempt to defend( 1, 2, 3, 4) content outside of the scope of the article but within the scope of the article Gun politics in the United States. In doing so he has personally attacked myself, and has not adhered to good faith. I believe the content is relevant to the gun politics article, but the content added to the Militia Act of 1903 article falls outside of its scope, and there has been a consensus built that shares my opinion, leaving a brief neutrally worded mention of its mention used in gun politic debates. Individual has come close to violating WP:3RR (1, 2) however, I have attempted to inform Billmckern when they get close to reaching violating 3RR, and had received rather cheeky response; additionally he has accused my multiple times of advocating for something when I haven't. If these editing falls within WP:ARBAP2, then the editing being done at the article in question might mean sanctions would be potentially issued, which I hope is not the case.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Read the article edits. Read the comment threads. I'm not the problem. RightCowLeftCoast is pushing an opinion that's at variance with facts, has resisted all efforts to find a compromise or consensus, and is not telling the truth about me. Billmckern (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The edits made to the article today, as well as the response above - clearly show that a content dispute is (at least currently) ongoing. Therefore, I've applied full edit protection to the article so that all parties involved can discuss their concerns and issues on the article's talk page and come to a consensus. This is a better solution than chasing individuals and wagging fingers at them over edit wars - let's take this discussion to the article's talk page and work the problem out together, everyone :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"Team work" in WP. Is it bad?

I ask your opinion on this, because certain users and admins in the Greek WP claim that suggestions such as "User A edits in coordination with Users B and C" is a "personal attack".

It is obvious that in certain articles, topics or discussions, a number of users have similar ideas and pattern of editions, and if needed (in debates, votes etc) they support each other. Is this bad? If you feel that several users are cooperating "against" one, and you complain about that, can any of them take it as an offence? Thanks for the answers.--Skylax30 (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Skylax30 - I believe that they were most likely referring to unfounded accusations against other editors for POV editing or POV pushing, single-purpose focus, or for sock or meat puppetry (or the collusion between accounts to cause bad-faith disruption) - and without any basis of proof or without evidence. They're most likely saying that accusing other editors of bad-faith behaviors or the collusion between them to coordinate and cause such behavior can be seen as a civility violation or a personal attack if such accusations are made without evidence or seems to have been made in frustration and spite toward them. As you said above: positive collaboration and teamwork between editors that are made in good faith is most certainly not a violation of policy; in fact, we greatly encourage it here. I think you were just confusing the difference between their description of what "bad-faith collusion and disruption" is vs "good faith teamwork and editing"... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

As Oshwah said, being in agreement is not a problem but being in agreement due to bias is not okay (at all). --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 16:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both. So, User:QEDK, you are suggesting that a group of users acting in agreement due to bias is not OK. Help me to clarify the "personal attack" issue with an example. Suppose that I post "In my opinion, User-A is biased". Is that a "personal attack" or within my right to freedom of speak and constructive dialogue? What about "Users A, B and C are editing in agreement and are biased, in my opinion"? Could they just answer "yes, we are editing as a team, but in good faith and we are not biased". Thanks again.--Skylax30 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Skylax30: It is not a personal attack to call out editors, provided you do so after assuming good faith. You have said it like a accusation, so unless you're sure you should avoid saying things like that, also saying it on an impulse is equal to assuming bad faith when it might have been a genuine coincidence. Now, if a group of editors were to say they were editing as a team, outside the bounds of normal editing or so, such as skewing votes of policy, making controversial POV edits, etc. that is a conflict of interest, since the editors are inherently biased. But, let's say two or more editors are meeting on-wiki and agree with each other on a certain policy and viewpoint, they are obviously allowed to agree with each other and express their opinions (but again, canvassing with intent to skew discussions is not). --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 17:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again. Good point that about "conflict of interest".--Skylax30 (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

User:CamdenEric

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

Something odd here. Newly-created account (2018-03-13), all edits (91 so far) focused around the actor Stephen Collins and similarly-named articles. Username similar to a character played by the actor: Eric Camden.

Not particularly unusual so far, but:

1. CamdenEric seems to know en.wp processes unusually well for a new editor: their 12th edit[151] was a PROD, 22d edit[152] an AFD, 68th edit[153] was opening a well-formed SPI.
2. CamdenEric seems keen to delete articles on other people named Stephen Collins/Steve Collins: PRODs and/or AFDs on 3 of the pages listed at Stephen Collins (disambiguation)
3. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kiernanmc (opened by CamdenEric), checkuser @Bbb23 notes the filer knows that person or persons, and there's bad blood between them. I have more to say but for the moment choose not to.
4. that bad blood can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Collins (journalist) and at WP:AN[154]

I dunno what all this amounts to, but it looks odd. More eyes on it would be welcome.

(Disclosure: I stumbled on this after spotting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Collins (journalist) listed at WP:WikiProject Ireland/Article alerts) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I had thought the exact same thoughts when I first encountered this editor a week or so agaon, BrownHairedGirl. Looks odd and troublesome, for sure. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello all. This is indeed my first username account but I have been editing on a variety of IP dresses over the years e.g. hopping on to my sister's computer to fix this and that. I created this account to help out with the editing of one of my favorite actors and stumbled upon the page that lists all the people named Stephen Collins. I didn't ask for all of them to be deleted just the ones that I thought were not as notable (I even voted to keep some articles I nominated to delete). I certainly did not mean to cause any harm on anyones page, I'm just trying to help out. However you are very right, that there is "bad blood" between me and the user Kiernanmc. After looking through the deletion page for one of the Steve Collins, I quickly caught that there was one major contributor. I clicked on the username, and on the username page there was a link to a Facebook account of someone with the same last name as the subject. That is so not okay. And then I noticed that there was another contributor who added unsourced information, after clicking on their contributions log, it was clear to me that they were editing the same pages (and they were all super specific), so I looked up "multiple accounts on Wikipedia" and followed the step-by-step process on filing a investigation. Again, I'm so sorry if I stepped on anyones toes, I'm just trying to do the right thing here. CamdenEric (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

User Frasfras17

Hi, could please an admin check the activity of Frasfras27 here ? I may be wrong, but this user reverted three users within 24 hours. Thanks a lot. Farawahar (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Which is complete OK within the the rules regarding edit revisions That page says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period". The key there is MORE than 3 revisions, which they haven't crossed yet. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a million for your quick answer, i was not sure of that, that’s why i asked here.Farawahar (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore Also, just to give you a perspective, I didn't revert their edits immediately, but went to the talk page first and asked for an explanation about the deletion of a sourced material based on some flawed logic. The involved user did not answer, and seemingly told his friends to come and revert my edit twice, so that I get involved in some sort of policy violation before notifying you. The three users are of the same nationality, and their reverts seem to be out of nationalistic motives.Frasfras17 (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully I have provided the tonic to stimulate the discussion.--Dlohcierekim (talk)

This is not the place for irrelevant dispute, but no “friend” asked me to revert, this is a personal attack, i reverted Frasfras because he provided no sources for his edit. As to my “nationalistic motives” just check my editing history and compare with Frafras17 ...

Farawahar (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• RickinBaltimore, yes it's only when you revert more than 3 times within 24 hours that you violate the bright-line 3RR rule, but I would never tell users it's completely OK to revert three times within 24 hours, especially not three different users. That's edit warring and it's not OK. Compare also the policy: "any edit warring may lead to sanctions". I'm sorry, I don't mean to be difficult, but I just don't want it to stand uncontradicted on ANI that reverting right up to the 3RR bright line is fine. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC).

No worries Bish, thanks for the clarification on that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for clarification.Farawahar (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I find it disconcerting that Frasfras17 along with edit warring, can make battleground comments concerning other editors nationality(The three users are of the same nationality..), and then on the Zakariya al-Qazwini talk page threaten to remove Persian categories from other articles! This does not appear to be editing conducive to creating an encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree, this user uses Wikipedia as a battleground and is here to collect fans and win.Farawahar (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, did you really read the talk page? He is the one who started edit warring with an absurd reasoning that basically says one's ethnicity changes based on his birth place! I did not threaten to remove those categories arbitrarily, but brought those examples to show this nationalistic user that his flawed logic could be applied to many articles which is absolutely ridiculous. Viaros17 (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Stalking, or appropriate use of edit history?

• SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Soilentred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Soilentred is changing various software articles to indicate that a certain version of Windows is required, such as Windows 7, even for software that ran under other versions of Windows in earlier releases. I noticed this on Opera (web browser), and fixed it there, and proceeded to make the same revert for other software that I knew ran on earlier versions of Windows. Soilentred reverted me, with edit summaries such as Stop following me and reverting all my edits. I attempted to engage on their talkpage, but it wasn't very useful. So, what now? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

IMO: (1) Soilentred seems to be making obviously incorrect changes. In the examples I looked at, when the product was released the claimed minimum required version of Windows was not even available ; (2) if an editor makes a bad edit, of course you check whether or not it was an isolated case. I have notified the editor of this discussion. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Drat. Thanks very much for passing on the notification, I know I have to do that myself, and I thought about it while I was typing... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) If you notice a problem with another user's edits, it is a completely acceptable use of edit history to check if they've made the same mistake multiple times. See this statement by ArbCom, in particular DMM's additional comment. Moreover, if they tell you to "stop following them", that is an assumption of bad faith and is actually an inversion of the WP:HOUND policy, and Soilentred (talk · contribs) should be told unambiguously to (a) knock it off with the bad-faith hounding accusations and (b) stop making problematic content edits or risk a TBAN or block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Their snarkiness aside, but if a software article is stating that the current stable version is X.X.X which is only compatible from a particular version of Windows, or whatever OS, is that wrong? I think Soilentred has a point. In the Opera example, would the article really be correct in saying the current stable version, 51.0.2830.55, is compatible with pre-7 Windows? Blackmane (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think it's intended to refer only to the current version, but I've raised the question at the Infobox Software talk page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that WP:NOTMANUAL, at the very least the earlier versions should be covered as well. Wikipedia is also supposed to have articles on fully defunct software that is no longer supported, some of which works on newer OSes by means of unofficial patches of questionable legality -- what would Soilentred's solution for those articles be? But it doesn't really matter, since even if Sarek was 100% wrong on the content, he clearly had reason to be wrong, so "Stop following me and reverting all my edits" was out-of-line.

It should also be noted that in the diffs about Soilentred appears to be directly admitting to engaging in OR by saying "I ran this software on several computers with different versions of Windows installed and found that Windows 7 or later worked"; Sarek did not misread that comment, as it looks exactly the same to me. If Soilent continues engaging in OR, they will need to be TBANned or blocked.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Shenanigans at Daniele Bonaviri

5.236.185.145 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

5.236.164.226 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

These IPs are repeatedly removing the maintenance tags (notability, need for third party sources, and BLP sourcing) as well as Category:Living people from Daniele Bonaviri. The article is referenced solely to the subject's website. I've reverted twice, so won't touch it again, but had left a message on Talk:Daniele Bonaviri about it. Could an admin look at this?

The article has a very murky contribution history to say the least. It was rev-deleted for blatant copyvio yesterday. It's original creator (Rashtooiy) re-added the copyvio today as well as removing the maintenance tags and Category:Living people. It's been rev-deleted again. Another user (Designcore) had repeatedly created the now-salted Draft:Daniele Bonaviri with the same copyvio. The copyvio material was also created in User:Designcore/sandbox (now deleted). Oddly, Designcore's only other contribution was to submit the rejected Draft:Joel Vicent Joseph for AfC review [155] despite not appearing anywhere else in the contribution history. Designcore also appears to have registered two accounts [156]. The second account is named Vinart.promo (now blocked for spam user name). Their only edit here (I think) was to paste the copyvio into the community sandbox [157]. Vinart Promo is the company that built and maintains Bonaviri's website. It's based in Iran as are the IPs. The IPs have taken over after Designcore and Rashtooiy received warnings about their behaviour. Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks to CambridgeBayWeather who has now semi-protected the article. Fast service! :) Voceditenore (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• I can't find any secondary sources by googling either. I've PRODded the article. It's not sticky PROD for BLPs, since there is a source, such as it is (the discography on the subjects own site), but ordinary PROD, so it will no doubt be removed as soon as the IP person gets autoconfirmed. (Cynical? Me?) Bishonen | talk 18:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC).

The irony of all this, Bish, is that he performs a lot in Italy and does appear the news there. It night even be capable of saving with a lot of work, but I'm certainly not going to do it after the shenanigans. Voceditenore (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Spintendo and the {{request edit}} queue

Since late 2017, Spintendo has become the most frequent answerer of COI requests generated by the {{request edit}} template, by far. This is a process encouraged by the community and endorsed by the WP:COI guideline (for those unfamiliar, the requests themselves can be found via AnomieBOT/EDITREQTable and also Category:Requested edits). At first this seemed a blessing, as a serious backlog had developed over time; within weeks, Spintendo had reduced it nearly to zero. Since then, they have continued responding so quickly as to become, in effect, the only volunteer editor working the queue. For others aware of this fact, I have to assume they've been grateful that someone else is handling this sometimes thankless task.

But the question of whether Spintendo is actually doing the community a favor is worthy of closer examination. In recent months, I have seen how Spintendo's monopolization of edit requests, unhelpful and sometimes hostile attitude, and idiosyncratic interpretation of policies and guidelines have harmed the process. Before getting too far into this, I want to be clear about what I am not saying: I am not saying Spintendo is always wrong to reject requests; indeed not all are worthy. Nor am I saying Spintendo rejects them 100% of the time: in fact Spintendo has implemented requests that I have made. Initially I viewed these conflicts as content disputes, as the cautious reader might. However, Spintendo's judgment has been repeatedly called into question at WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:BLP/N, and via WP:RfC, and it is possible to demonstrate a pattern of conduct that I believe rises to the level of AN/I.

Regardless of one's opinion of paid editing or paid editors, I hope readers here would agree that the COI request process is an important one, a necessary supplement to the efforts at WP:AfC and WP:COI/N. My goal here is to make others aware of this issue, to bring some sanity to the COI request process, and perhaps even encourage other volunteers to pitch in more often. That said, in order to demonstrate that there is a problem, here are some recent examples of Spintendo's disagreeable reviewing style, citing matters both resolved and unresolved. I have limited my examples to those I have participated in or investigated and where I have confidence in the quality of the requests made:

• Michael J. Saylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently asked to include a noteworthy detail about Mr. Saylor's college education, cited to the Washington Post. Spintendo responded by casting doubt on the Post story, offering a puzzling rationale based on guesses about the college administration to justify this position. Soon, Drmies and Cullen328 joined the discussion to say the detail was germane and the source reliable, so Drmies made the edit, and Spintendo did not respond again.

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

I have suggested replacing a poorly referenced awards section with one I believe is better sourced. Spintendo declined the request within two hours, arguing variously that the recognition was based on "subjective metrics" and the source publications had "deep connections" to the industry. I explained why I thought these criticisms were misapplied, but upon subsequent reply Spintendo offered a different set of grounds for objection, also not based on content guidelines. As of this writing, I consider the matter unresolved.

• Broadridge Financial Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A colleague, Danilo Two, has been offering suggested additions for this very short, multiply-tagged article, for several months now. In a discussion stretching back to late January, Spintendo has opposed the inclusion of a proposed "History" section, focusing exclusively on a single Forbes magazine article they claim is WP:OR. Due to the lack of input from other volunteers, and following Spintendo's suggestion, Danilo brought the matter to DRN, where it remains unresolved.

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

A very similar situation involves my colleague Inkian Jason proposing a "Products and services" section to this likewise underwritten article, where Spintendo has, since January, declined requests to add at least three different versions of seemingly uncomplicated and well-referenced information. After Jason made edits based on feedback, Spintendo would move the goalposts, sometimes agreeing to add the odd bullet point or two to the live article but offering inscrutable reasons to oppose the rest, meanwhile using an elaborate "reply quotebox" format which makes the conversation extremely difficult to follow. The matter is currently also at DRN, and so is unresolved.

• New York Life Insurance Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Here, 16912 Rhiannon spent several months going back and forth with Spintendo, who insisted on including a section sourced only to a single report by a NJ state agency. (There are no other sources; it generated no news.) When she posted an RfC seeking others' input, Spintendo responded with a long and condescending "survey" that Rhiannon was expected to answer to demonstrate her understanding of "secondary" sources. After she withdrew and rephrased the RfC, Icewhiz showed up and removed the section, following which other editors commented in basic agreement. As of this writing, Spintendo has not responded.

My observations regarding patterns in Spintendo's interactions with COI editors; some of these examples necessarily make reference to content disagreements, but are focused on repetitions amounting to AN/I-worthy behavior:

• Closes requests too quickly, not allowing time for any other editors who may also be watching the request edit queue. This is apparent on the Broadridge talk page, where Spintendo three times declined separate requests within a couple of hours each, effectively discouraging follow-up questions. Moreover, by acting in such haste, Spintendo makes snap judgments which other editors have sometimes had to address later. (For example, this happened to Rhiannon in December on the talk page for HubSpot, where Kvng and Keithbob eventually got involved.)

• Repeatedly questions the validity of reliable secondary sources, and asks instead for primary sources contemporary with the events themselves. This is especially apparent on the Broadridge article where Spintendo rejected the Forbes piece while asking for "primary sources published at the time", and the Saylor article where they rejected the Washington Post and asked for substantiation by "someone in the registrars office" at MIT. See also Spintendo's extensive wikilawyering about what constitutes a "secondary source" in order to justify basing a whole section on a NJ state government report at New York Life.

• Otherwise misinterprets rules to stymie COI requests, for example asserting the essay WP:NUMBER1, which is very clearly about AfD and Notability, applies to the inclusion of information within articles. In another circumstance, claiming passages are "insufficiently paraphrased" and therefore WP:COPYVIO even where the proposed language contained details not in the identified source passage (look for "ListHub" in this discussion on the article for Move (company)). From a MOS perspective, Spintendo sometimes replaces or substitutes prose paragraphs with lists, especially in "History" sections, currently at MicroStrategy and formerly at Realtor.com (a situation later resolved by SMcCandlish), although Wikipedia conventions and MOS:LISTBASICS specifically discourage this practice.

• Opposes COI requests only until another volunteer editor takes action, and then disappears from the conversation, suggesting they care more about frustrating COI editors than the article content itself. See discussions abandoned at Michael J. Saylor, New York Life, and HubSpot once others intervened.

A case could be made that this amounts to targeted harassment of disclosed COI contributors and, for anyone who has experienced it, it certainly feels like gaslighting. But that judgment call need not be made to see there is a problem here. It's enough to observe that Spintendo has become a bottleneck for COI requests: this pattern of opposing well-intentioned and carefully-constructed content proposals with lengthy, confusing, argumentative objections based on novel interpretations of guidelines or expedient standards entirely of their own invention has become a major challenge for those of us who are trying to follow the rules and work through the {{request edit}} process. That is not just myself and my colleagues, but anyone following the advice to use this template as given at WP:COIEDIT.

Until such time as this changes, I cannot recommend to any company or organization that they use the {{request edit}} template. Meanwhile, I fear that the breakdown of this process will embolden others who would edit without disclosure. The queue needs other voices, and Spintendo must either follow the accepted guidelines in reviewing requests or cease doing so altogether. Community oversight, and some common sense, is badly needed here. Thanks for reading—I realize it's a lot to consider on a subject most are content to ignore—and I'll be happy to answer any questions that I can. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The box that you claim to be extensive wikilawyering is a fine example of defining primary, secondary, and tertiary sourcing, as you would learn in any historiography course. I've never heard of Spintendo before, and I've not checked any of your other links, but if this is his style, we need him to keep going. [Update] I have checked Saylor, and he's absolutely right: the Washington Post is relying on faulty information, because like all other newspapers, it's an expert at publishing new stuff, not an expert at scholarly-level research. This is not speculation: it's exactly what you're expected to do in evaluating sources, and if you think that we can trust a source when its sources are faulty, you need to go to your local college and speak with the reference librarian. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

At New York Life, the source in dispute was a state government report, easily recognizable as a WP:PRIMARY source, later adjudicated to be so by editors participating in an RfC. Re: Saylor, the objection was entirely based on speculation. The Post is not in the habit of reporting things it believes to be false, and there was no reasonable cause to doubt it. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, actual college librarian here. We instruct students that the Washington Post and newspapers of similar caliber are generally considered reliable sources appropriate for their use in assignments, just as they are appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles. Of course scholarly peer-reviewed resources are preferable, but they are generally unnecessary for basic, non-controversial biographical facts. We teach students to think critically about sources, but we do not teach them to engage in belligerent groundless nitpicking nor do we encourage them to present others with condescending quizzes. There's nothing here that I would consider consistent with an appropriate approach to critically evaluating sources, these examples are instead consistent with the actions of an wikilawyering ideologue determined to get their way regardless of the content of those sources. It is disappointing that you do not distinguish between the two in this case. Gamaliel (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I was just about to comment on this when you basically took the words out of my mouth. There is no way I'm going to look at all of the links provided, nor read through all of the above complaint. (TLDR) However, looking at the talk page and seeing the chart in question, that is definitely not describing primary, secondary, or tertiary sources. It's like saying, "A pilot writes information about flying a plane (primary source). A writer turns that information into a draft of a flight manual (secondary source). A publisher turns that into an actual flight manual for the public to read (tertiary source)." No, the flight manual is still a primary source. A primary source is one which is directly related or involved with to the issue or item discussed, and does the original research themselves. A secondary source is a source unaffiliated with the original source, but uses the primary sources for research, is qualified to interpret them, and is under editorial (and often peer reviewed) oversight. (ie: journalism) A tertiary source is one that relies on secondary sources (like Wikipedia does), does no original research of its own, and does not offer interpretations of primary sources. The PDF WWB Too listed above needs a lawyer to interpret it and is definitely a primary source. Zaereth (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The community has done an excellent job of correcting me in the past where that has been needed, and I put my faith in that community now to do the same. The concerns which arise from this, most active group of COI editors is not too surprising, in that they submit a good amount of edit requests overall. And while the complaint about being served "too quickly" is perhaps a new one as far as COI edit requests go, it is nevertheless, understandable that declining these requests is something they find troubling. However, the belief that this is a targeted action of stonewalling or else incompetence, I don't agree with.

1. In the case of Michael J Saylor, Drmies was quite right in asking why a grown man would pay to see to it that this detail ends up in his bio. It's a good question, but Drmies thought better of going round after round arguing the triviality of the claim, and ultimately decided, based on policy, to approve the addition. Drmies is a peacemaker, and I completely respect that.
2. With respect to MicroStrategy, the inclusion of these awards which the editor desires to place there are examples of WP:PEACOCK. We all know that these awards, while indicating important aspects of the article's subject, are difficult to rank objectively,. Additionally these awards may be intended as information for the publication's audiences, and not Wikipedia's (my reasoning being that not everyone will know what it means to be ranked as overall number 1 in industry ontime accrual rating procedures.) My actions here declining these additions align with other editors actions and are not too revolutionary.
3. Broadridge concerns actions which another legal entity - ADP - was responsible for. Broadridge was incorporated in 2007, which raised concerns in my mind over who rightfully owns a company's past actions. I believe that these claims belong in the ADP article. Because of mine and the COI' editor's tardiness in replying at a mediated dispute forum, the COI editor's dispute request was closed. The COI editor was told their appeal could take months. It was my urging of the case to be reopened that it continues now. This would appear to be an instance where I helped them to continue an action against myself. Why? For me, it just felt like the closing was my fault, and that they deserved a full chance to be heard.
4. Iteris has been addressed at DRN. The words of Robert McClenon can speak for themselves in that case. 1., 2.
5. Finally there is New York Life Insurance company, where the editor would like to remove information regarding a market response report prepared by the NJ Department of Banking and Insurance. These market reports are fairly regular (in that many banks and insurance companies in that state undergo them). They are begun in response to complaints from consumers. The report on NYLIC is significant because it is the only one in recent history that NJ DOBI has had to do for that company. The COI editor was concerned with how the report looked in the article. I reworded it by highlighting the investigation as a net gain for the company, in that it heralded customer improvements (which was stated in the report's opening paragraphs) I also made sure page numbers were ascribed where necessary. In response to an edit request, I placed the claim in the main body of text, and not its own section. The COI editor understandably now would like all of it removed, but as I understood the rules, removing bad information because it was bad was not a good idea. That process is still ongoing. Spintendo      23:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

For those wanting to know about the chart I got that from Wikipedia's party and person page located here, with slight modification as you can see, to the examples. The statement that "A secondary source is a source 1) unaffiliated with the original source, but 2) uses the primary sources for research, 3) is qualified to interpret them, and 4) is under editorial (and often peer reviewed) oversight." is just how I see it as well. I believe that NJDOBI falls under this rubric as:

1. The NJDOBI is professionally unaffiliated with NYLIC, in that one entity is a government regulator specializing in government regulations and enforcement while NYLIC specializes in offering insurance.
2. NJ DOBI made their examinations of primary source documents provided by NYLIC
3. As attorneys, the officials at NJ DOBI were qualified to examine the documents and to interpret them.
4. The editorial oversight of the NJ DOBI comes from the NJ State Legislature, which regulates ond oversees the DOBI

Spintendo      00:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've only looked at the Saylor saga, "Request to re-include mention graduation ranking". If I had been dealing with it (and everyone's lucky I didn't!) I wouldn't have gone anywhere near a discussion about whether the source was primary, or reliable, or erroneous, or anything else. I would have just have said, no, I don't feel like making this edit: it is not appropriate to a brief biography of someone's life and it does not improve the encyclopedia article. If anyone else had felt like making the edit I would have thought they were a bit misguided but I wouldn't have objected or reverted. Thincat (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• Chiming in as I was mentioned vis-a-vis New York Life. While I think it was correct to remove the section, and I BOLDly did so (and indeed there is consensus at the RfC presently to do so), I do not think it was unreasonable for Spintendo to object. In my view this is a situation that many editors would remove after examining (and even more would remove given a reasoned short UNDUE arguement based on a single primary source) - but Spintendo's rejection of the edit request was within the norm of Wikipedia editors and was reasonable.Icewhiz (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

And I thank you for acting BOLDly. The frustrating thing about that darned claim was that I could not locate anything else mentioning it wherever I looked. I had to tell myself that at the end of the day, if it's that routine where the only people talking about it are the ones doing the investigating, then it probably should have been removed eventually. And while I still believe it to be a very problematic secondary source, I'm satisfied with the outcome. Spintendo      12:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggest That Policy Issue Be Taken to VPP

Well, well. This is really very much a case of biting the hand that feeds one. The request-edit queue is a means for paid editors to request that volunteer editors do them a service that they are not required to do. User:Spintendo is being reported here for not being a good enough clerk-typist in working off the queue of COI request edits. I have just responded to the two issues that are at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and in both cases it appears that the paid editor is requesting the services of a second volunteer editor because the first volunteer editor, Spintendo, isn't rewriting the articles as requested. My first thought is that if paid editors want Wikipedia articles rewritten to their specifications, they can rewrite the article themselves and host it on their corporate web site (either with full attribution, or with no attribution by completely rewriting it and putting it under corporate copyright).

I agree with the filing party, User:WWB Too, as to not recommending to companies that they use the request edit queue, but not as to blaming either Spintendo or the volunteer community.

I see a policy issue that needs to be addressed, which is that the request-edit queue has become an attractive nuisance and needs to be rethought.

However, this thread is a conduct complaint at WP:ANI. I certainly do not see any valid basis for a conduct complaint against User:Spintendo or any other volunteer editor. Can we close this and take it to Village pump? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. Clearly the behavior of Spintendo is at issue here, not just the queue. Gamaliel (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel - Yes, they have made it the issue here. It shouldn't be. My first argument is essentially that they have no right to make it into an issue, because Spintendo is providing a voluntary service, and they are complaining that the service isn't good enough. However, second, as a conduct issue, what do they want? The only remedy that we can provide here at WP:ANI would be to topic-ban Spintendo from working the queue. Is that what they want? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Certainly, I would like to find a solution short of a topic ban, and it's no accident that I did not ask for one. A preferable outcome would be greater participation in this process, so that when Spintendo offers a response that does not comply with content guidelines—which, as I have demonstrated, is too frequent an occurrence to be ignored—that others may weigh in short of having to seek redress at 3O or DRN. Additionally, I'm surprised at your suggestion that {{request edit}} is the problem here. It's a flawed tool, difficult to use and harder to find, but seeking to have it closed down would only drive more COI activity underground. It serves a purpose, but it's not working well. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 03:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

User:WWB Too - First, I know that you aren't asking for a topic-ban, because I know that you know that if you have User:Spintendo topic-banned, no one else will be working the queue. Second, I am not sure how likely you are to get greater participation in the process when you have made participation in the process unpleasant for Spintendo, and have shown other editors who might consider helping out that what they will get is buffets and spitting. Third, I wasn't suggesting that the request-edit tool be shut down, only that it be rethought, but by dragging the editor who provides you with assistance here, you are making a case that perhaps the tool should be shut down. It's a flawed tool, and it's not working well, partly because you paid editors are just using the tool to pile on increasingly burdensome and complex edit requests to rewrite Wikipedia articles to your own specifications. If you want articles that meet your specifications, you have your own web sites. Spintendo is voluntarily providing you with a service that neither he nor Wikipedia is required to provide you with, and you are making things unpleasant. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, as I believe the diffs above verify, my colleagues and I have been unfailingly polite to Spintendo, and always aim to be concise and careful in our content proposals when using {{request edit}}. I never want to be at AN/I, but given the above I felt I had no other recourse. As Mary Gaulke states below, it is Spintendo who is frequently unpleasant, condescending, and resentful in tone. Likewise, as she observes, Spintendo's feedback is "dramatically different" from other volunteer respondents. This has been my experience, too.

Additionally: I am open to a re-imagining of the process; it so happens it's a topic I'd raised with Doc James, Harej, DGG, Smallbones, Fuzheado and others at Wikimania Montreal. I think a queue that is easier to read, with instructions for both requesting editors and moderators to make things easy to follow would be great. There's too much misunderstanding in this topic area, and I'd support anything that makes it run better. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to respond here, precisely because of the "biting the hand that feeds" point that Robert McClenon made. I'm very grateful for Spintendo's work reducing the edit request backlog, and I've told them as much. And while I'm a fairly infrequent user of the process (Wikipedia is a pretty minor part of my job), I must note that some of the feedback I've received from Spintendo is dramatically different from my experience with other editors and my understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines. The ongoing discussions here are a fairly good representation of my two primary observations:

1. Spintendo requests primary sources for information that isn't particularly biased and is well documented in secondary sources (in this case, the identity of the subject's alma mater). This isn't particularly cumbersome, but is a little peculiar.
2. Spintendo seems to resent being asked, even implicitly, to address these requests at all. They do not appear to read very closely, and are dismissive of any moderately nuanced request. (In this case, I proposed moving some information from a very long lead into a new section in the body of the article for the sake of organization, and Spintendo interpreted this as adding completely new information. When I attempted to clarify, Spintendo replied with a somewhat condescending tone.) When Spintendo stopped replying to my clarifications, I proposed that I could re-open the edit request and give another editor a chance to review my requests, since it was clear they were tired of dealing with me. Spintendo interpreted this as me threatening to quit Wikipedia, a misreading which may or may not have been intentional. I'm grateful for all the volunteers who work on edit requests, and I understand that these requests are an imposition. But I'd rather wait out a longer edit request queue than bother someone who seems to dislike this work quite strongly.

I've been an active Wikipedia editor for about four years, but I'm aware I'm still not an expert on some of the finer points of the guidelines. It's possible none of this is unusual or out of bounds. But if nothing else I'd certainly appreciate clarification of where the goalposts are so I can make sure I'm providing straightforward, well-crafted edit requests. Mary Gaulke (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's unfortunate that Spintendo has ended up at the complaints board. Can someone check over Talk:Michael Izza to see if there are any wild interpretations of policy? Cheers. talk to !dave 07:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Since someone is asking, I'll bite: the responses in Note 1 and Note 3 are good examples of how, when asked to make a simple factual change with a reliable secondary source to support it, Spintendo then asks for additional detail that isn't strictly necessary. As demonstrated in my first post above, this happened at Talk:Iteris, and each time the draft was updated, Spintendo subsequently offered new reasons to object.

That said, this is also a good example of two problems I noted in my comment just a few minutes ago: a) the COI contributor clearly knows little about Wikipedia conventions, and so has written a request that is poorly organized and asks too much of the volunteer reviewer, while b) Spintendo's reply is difficult to parse and made all the worse for the terrible "quotebox" format. As a result, they are talking past each other, and the tools aren't helping. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

In response to Mary's post, I honestly have no resentful feelings for Mary. She is constantly mentioned by other editors as being an exemplar for COI editing, - kind, concise, and not wasting of time. I can say that I've definately seen the first two. But I have to admit Mary, that the particular request you mentioned was not worded by you very well at all. It did not state overall, that what you wanted was merely to move one thing from one location to another. I am a visual learner, which is a big reason why I use quoteboxes. In that way I can explain actions using shortcuts like color and placement to indicate to the requesting editors my decisions more easily. If Mary had marked the text that she wanted moved in a bright color, say Blue, and underneath it placed a bolded statement that said something like Text to be moved, she and others would see instantly what it is she wanted done and which text she wanted it done to. When I hear people talking about the problems with COI edit requests, Im not thinking of the requests themselves as the problem, I believe the problem is communicating in a more standardized way, using scripts that make use of color and position, that would go a long way towards streamlining requests.

But back to Mary. Her request was very poorly worded, and left me confused about what she wanted. And I do appreciate Mary's candor here, but Mary — you've forgotten to mention how you gave me, in that same request, a 14 page document with the instructions similar to "You find the page. I'm busy. Just look it up on Google." .... Mary — you actually said that last part to me — that I could find the reference for myself on google. How do you expect a person who is doing your paid work for you to respond to that type of behavior. Those words and those actions are not using honey to catch flies Mary, they're using vinegar. So when you said that "perhaps we needed some new eyes on this" but didnt specify whose eyes needed replacing, I mentioned how you would be missed and that I wished you'd reconsider. While the first part was in jest, the second part was not. Mary, I remember one of the first interactions I had with you, back in the not soo long days ago of the 100+ COI edit request queue. I remember you being worried and discussing your plight with editors....what had happened is for whatever reason you were bumped from your place at number 15 I believe, bumped down to number 134. You were concerned about being forgotten, as all that time you had waited patiently to get to number 15 and now here you were all the way back at 134. Would anyone remember you were there waiting? I remember thinking "Dont worry Mary, we're not going to forget about you. I'm not going to forget about you. And I told you as much. I've made a point on occassions to come back to check on your requests to make sure everything was ok and that you weren't alone or forgotten That is the COI edit request reviewer I am deep down inside, and I know you are that same COI edit requester deep down inside as well. I hope that we can both continue to work on COI things together. I know that we can see eye to eye and work out any communication difficulties along the way. Spintendo      13:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

As far as the Michael Izza request, those claims have Mr. Izza offering, lending, calling upon, encouraging, and being vocal about a great many things.... But not much doing of anything. Is it notable when one person encourages someone else? Is the simple fact of calling upon something now so importantly notable that it must be mentioned in every article where it occurs? I'm sorry, but this looks a lot like garden variety name-dropping to me. Spintendo      13:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have neither the time nor the energy to read over all this and respond in detail (and so I will try to refrain from generalizing about the two editors), but I urge editors not to be too quickly in dismissing WWB's complaints. Those of you who know me know I have little patience with those who abuse Wikipedia for financial purposes (witness my response to the edit request mentioned in this thread), but WWB, for a COI editor, seems to play it straight--though I will admit that my experience with them is somewhat limited. I was also a bit disappointed in some of Spintendo's remarks pertaining to those articles and found them, hmm, exaggeratedly pointed. Casting doubt on RS is fine and acceptable but there is a time and a place for those things--article talk pages should feature (hate that word) such discussions if there are practical, applicable concerns about specific articles and bits of information; general questions and grievances should be brought up elsewhere. I found WWB to be reasonable and an asset, certainly in comparison to other COI editors. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm in a hotel lobby where a Lawrence Welk-type orchestra (is it Herb Alpert?) is heard playing "Blue Moon" over the stereo, so you understand I gots to get up and dance. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

More Thoughts and Questions

I have a few thoughts and questions.

First, I have a two-part question for User:Spintendo, or for any other volunteer editor who has been working the queue. The first part of the question is: Have some of the edit requests been lengthy or complex? The second part is: Have the edit requests tended to become more lengthy and complex in the past few months? My ulterior motive for asking this is that I wonder whether Spintendo, by addressing simple requests ably, is essentially setting up high expectations that they can work wonders in carrying out complex requests.

Second, I wonder whether there is a cognitive disconnect between what the paid editors and their corporate managers want and what they can get and ask in a volunteer organization. Demands that someone do their job better in various ways (more quickly, more pleasantly, more proficiently, etc.) make sense in an employee content, because the manager has the ultimate option, which they would prefer not to use, to fire the employee, so that the employee really has an incentive to heed the advice to do a better job. However, volunteers are working the edit-request queue, and the corporate managers don’t really have an alternative, other than to put the articles up on the corporate web site. It isn’t realistic to expect that the use of a complaint mechanism such as WP:ANI will result in better volunteer service. As I said yesterday, the only real question is whether the paid editors would prefer to rely entirely on other volunteers without Spintendo. (Also, the fact that the paid editors are rewarding a service with buffets and spitting is a reason why other volunteer editors may prefer not to work the queue.) I am wondering whether the paid editors are using a thought process that is more appropriate to employment than to receiving a voluntary service.

Third, there seems to be agreement that the tool is flawed and can use improvement. Can the paid editors, who are the beneficiaries of the tool, assist in improving the tool to serve them better?

Fourth, and this may be minor but is a persistent subtheme, the paid editors keep saying that they do not want to demand a lot of time, but they are demanding a lot of time. For instance, there have been several requests filed by paid editors at the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) recently. Most recently two of them asked for additional voices or additional volunteer input or review. They wanted a neutral editor to review their requests based on policies and guidelines, that is, one more volunteer after Spintendo, and more time. That is a request for yet more volunteer time after a volunteer has already provided their time in working the edit request queue. They say that they don’t want to demand a lot of time, but they are demanding a lot of time.

Fifth, perhaps the request edit queue needs to be rethought in either of two ways, because it is becoming an unlimited demand for the time of volunteer editors. The first way, the more radical, might be to do away with the request edit queue and instead to allow them to edit the articles, with their edits declared as COI in edit summaries, subject to 1RR, and to impose very strict limits on their use of dispute resolution mechanisms. The second way, the less radical, might be simply to impose very strict, probably zero, limits on their use of dispute resolution mechanisms. That is, since they are requesting a voluntary service from the volunteer editors, stop re-litigating the requests.

Sixth, I come back to where I started, with a question for the paid editors. It is unrealistic to expect that Spintendo will be a different editor than Spintendo is, and it seems that is what they are asking. This noticeboard isn’t meant to sound out vague policy complaints; it is meant to request administrative action. The only administrative action that can be provided is some restriction on Spintendo working the edit queue. Is that really what the paid editors want? If so, I suggest that Spintendo simply leave the request edit queue, proudly, knowing that he has done his job as well as he could, and got buffets and spitting. If not, maybe the paid editors should thank Spintendo rather than complaining. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 23:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate reason for deletion (notability)

Please help me with... the issue relating to one of the articles that I have created - Leoni Wiring Systems Southeast. The article is currently nominated for deletion (for the second time in last 7 days). However, I'm not able to find opinion from other users concerning article's notability. The nominator has agreed in a discussion that all references in the article are independent and coming from secondary sources, but that some/all of them are not intellectually independent (in his opinion). In my opinion, the nominator has a tendency to give misleading statements based on his subjective interpretations of references that are in the article. So far, I have tried to politely explain each of the issues he raised, and even to add additional references concerning article's topic (i.e. company) notability.

One key notice: Apparently, the nominator is trying to push for changes in WP:ORGIND criteria of WP:ORG, as shown here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Intellectual_Independence. I think that this has been the main reason on why he was so persistent in his "non-notable statements" in nomination. In my opinion this is unacceptable behavior, where you discuss and nominate article due concerns over its notability, while at the same time you agree (in a discussion) that there are no violations of criteria for determining topic's notability (mainly in WP:ORGIND), except that the sources used in article are "not intellectually independent". Currently, nearly all references in the article are in line with WP:ORGCRITE and WP:ORGIND, and give clear indication of topic's notability as per WP:ORG. However, someone is trying to decide whether the topic of article is notable, based on subjective interpretations of references and personal nonadopted proposals of criteria changes in WP:ORG.

Please, write your opinion about it and give your opinion on whether is this good way of discussing where someone is referring to non-adopted proposals for criteria changes. And by the way, never explicitly pointing to it, thus way leaving a room for confusion in a discussion.--AirWolf ^talk 22:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This reads like canvassing to me. Number 57 22:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It certainly is not my intention. I am addressing particularly to use of nonadopted criteria (i.e. intellectual independence) in discussions in general when determining topic's notability.--AirWolf ^talk 22:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

A new version of the notability guidelines for organizations and companies were adopted today which has a detailed discussion of the meaning of independent source, complete with a truth table to check sources against. Jbh ^Talk 23:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Just noting here that the the first sentence of the OP's second paragraph is a bit of a misrepresentation. HighKing's "pushing" was a month ago, a number of other editors, notably Renata (talk · contribs), were "pushing" harder, and the change was finally implemented earlier today by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) in accordance with a "strong consensus" in an RFC closed by Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs), in which HighKing was only the eleventh support !vote. I have no idea how the OP came across the month-old comments by HighKing specifically, apparently without reading the rest of the discussion, but this looks a bit like bad-faith hounding... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I have overseen the NCORP guideline discussion 3,4,5 and 6 sections. It will be great to see how these guidelines are going to be implemented in articles covering companies/organizations, especially in this era of media reporting where dependability and independence is questionable in 90% of news articles. But glad that this article is one of the first where the discussion started concerning intellectual independence of content created by journalists. --AirWolf ^talk 09:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Another hysterical over-reaction by AirWolf to any opinion other than his own about Leoni. Yawn! Cabayi (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Stubborn edit-warrior and POV-pusher

I am fed-up of allways having to go trough edit-wars with Director. This is the last case: Yugoslav Air Force edit history. As anyone can clearly see at the article infobox Yugoslav Air Force, the amblem of the air force contains the insignia RV PVO (for Ratno vazduhoplovstvo Protivvazdušna odbrana). That was the official name of the Yugoslav Air Force and Air Defense in Serbo-Croatian. Now, the issue is that during Yugoslavia, Serbian version of Serbo-Croatian was prefered over Croatian one and used officially (like Russian was in USSR over other languages). However, Croatian user Director insists in deleting the Serbian version corresponding to the official name, and inseting the not used Croatian version which obviously doesnt match the initials (Ratno zrakoplovstvo i protuzračna obrana. As anyone can see, the official name was RV PVO and not RZ PZO. Director removed the official name and replaced it with a Croatian name version in a place where official name stands in the infobox with this ridiculous excuse: Rv. This is a TRANSLATION, FkpCascais. When I left his "translation" but reinserted the official name, he reverted me again. He is obviously using all excuses just to have the Croatian version as official, which is wrong and awfull nationalistic POV-pushing.

So, I am fed-up of this petty nationalistic POV-pushing, removing official name just because it is in another language that not in his one is a no-no. Then further edit-waring over it, this editor does this constantly, please condemn this negative nationalistic behaviour. FkpCascais (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you on this one. The Serbian language uses both latin and cyrilic script, while the Croatian language uses latin script only. Both are de facto post-war standardized varieties of of the Serbo-Croatian language. I have reverted his edit.--AirWolf ^talk 14:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, that was the issue in the article, however, the issue here is really about Director´s behavior. He knows perfectly well that in Yugoslavia all national institutions were named in its official Serbian variant of Serbo-Croatian. As in USSR all were in Russian, and not Kyrgyz. Obviously that in countries with more than one official language, every other language had its corresponding name in that language for the institution, I agree that it should be mentioned as well, but this user is removing the official version of the name just because it doesnt correspond to his prefered one, and he does this often using all excuses he can and reverting agressivelly. This was just another exemple of his behavior, not even the clear initials from the official amblem served, he reverted with excuse of Croatian being "a translation" (if just a translation, does it even deserves a place in infobox then? And he want to put a translation as official name?). The point here is Direktors nationalistic POV-pushing where he does all he can to present the Croatian version as official and remove the Serbian one (OK, leaves the Cyrillic version, knowing 99% of en.wiki readers dont understands it, and ignores on purpose Serbian Latin version is official). FkpCascais (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

These reverts are not right and are bad-intentioned:

• Revert 1
• Revert 2

We should not face the stress of dealing with this behavior. Removing the official naming and replacing it by his prefered Croatian version is just low nationalistic POV-pushing which should not be tolerated here. FkpCascais (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, this is no place to discuss a content dispute. Secondly, the brackets in the lead have nothing to do with historical usage, but are modern-day translations in the relevant language(s). Thirdly "RV PVO" is just the acronym on the logo. You know full well that Serbo-Croatian in Yugoslavia had two variants... Serbian and Croatian... I can easily present sources indicating the contemporary (Yugoslav-era) use of the Croatian version ("Jugoslavensko ratno zrakoplovstvo"). If anyone is pushing a history-distorting Serbian-nationalist POV - it is precisely you. You are excluding the Croatian variant. And hardly for the first time, either...

You introduced edits, I reverted them as misinformed and inappropriate... I suppose trying to get me blocked is your best argument? or is it the inevitable edit-warring you will initiate once this angle fails...? -- Director (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

P.s. In an ideal world this shouldn't matter, but I will point out that AirWolf is another Serbian editor... a friend, perhaps? Either way they may be looking to edit-war their exclusion of the Croatian version into the article, by means of WP:GAMING the 3RR... Neither have as yet condescended to post a thread on the talkpage to discuss their (new, opposed) edit. -- Director (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Please, leave aside ad hominem attacks in discussions. I hope that both of you agree with the current state of "translations" on the article - [158]. It uses both language variants of Serbo-Croatian, in total two official scripts of the Serbian language and latin script in Croatian language. The relevant discussion if some of you do not agree, is placed at the article's TP - Talk:Yugoslav_Air_Force#Use_of_Serbo-Croatian_variants.--AirWolf ^talk 17:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Response to Direktors claims: It is me who actually DIDN´T exclude any variant (diff]) but Direktor who insisted in excluding twice (Revert 1 and Revert 2) the Serbian Latin variant (used officially by the institution) and replacing it by his prefered Croatian one. It is just silly nationalistic POV-pushing followed by regular stubborn edit-warring too much frequent in this editors behavior and as such becomes really disruptive. One should not have to deal with this disruption always when edits an article this user does as well and considers its own. FkpCascais (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

FkpCascais is a well known POV pusher who was reported many times and warned against such behavior. I personally had to open several RfCs because of his behavior. 141.136.192.69 (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a few days ago I had to revert his deeds again. You know, no one has time to watch over him. 141.136.192.69 (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep aside from ad hominem attacks, and in case you have a registered account, please log in. I don't see how in this case FkpCascais pushed his POV. He also insisted on both languages, and use of all three scripts.--AirWolf ^talk 20:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm just sick of having to deal with this guy all the time. [159] is just from 2 days ago. And he constantly goes around Croatian articles inserting such POV. 141.136.192.69 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I am such an obstacle to nationalist POV-pushing, am I IP (most probable cmtsock)? FkpCascais (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Evilness is incomprehensible

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yesterday, there was a thread started by User:Mathmensch that's been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive978#What kinds of robust debates are allowed? After that thread was closed, they posted on their userpage stating that Human evilness remains incomprehensible to me. Since the thread begins I'm for various reasons no longer a part of this community, they have fairly explicitly identified themselves as a troll, and they're continuing to engage in personal attacks such as the above, I suggest that they are no longer here to contribute, and strongly recommend an indefinite block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Please, this is not a personal attack. Also, I'm only here because I don't want to be called an

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=27 December 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

, a

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=27 December 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

, an

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=27 December 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

or

This file {{{this image}}}.

Unless {{{will be deleted unless}}}, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added. Please remove this template if {{{remove this template if}}}.

---

Usage: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}|{{{template}}}]]|date=27 December 2024}}
Notify the uploader with: {{[[Template:{{{template}}}-notice|subst:{{{template}}}-notice]]|1=Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} ~~~~
Add the following to the image captions: {{Deletable file-caption||CSD}}

. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The poster is jumbling together a string of unrelated statements of my userpage. And I'm not self-identifying as a troll, I've merely posted a picture of a troll on my userpage. I've contributed 20 articles and a wikibook. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support and was strongly considering opening this myself when I saw that they not only restored the link to the diatribe on meta (of which I'm graciously a part now), but have been doing nothing for the past day but raising a stink on (by my count) nine different user pages when they haven't so much as breathed in the direction of an article for almost eight months. If they want to actually contribute they can file an unblock request, but editing privileges are not designed solely for the purpose of drama, without even the pretense that they plan to do anything that's actually productive. GMG^talk 14:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• They added the link to the meta diatribe after PMC had warned them they were up against a NOTHERE block. I've done the needful. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jaco IV

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user continually reverts my edits without explanation. I have tried to engage him in discussion on his talk page (User_talk:Jaco_IV#Italian_basketball_clubs_in_European_and_worldwide_competitions), where I provided links to the places in the MoS which explain the purpose and the benefits of my actions but he simply will not discuss it. This pattern of behaviour has been going on for some weeks now. Here is the link showing his recent reversion of my edits to more than 30 articles without even an edit summary [160]. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and forum shopping. See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. A report has already been filed regarding this situation and handled appropriately. Please take your concerns to the article's talk page and discuss the issues so that they come to a consensus and close. Since this has already seen admin eyes at WP:AN3, I'm closing this discussion here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LTA, aggressive edit-warring socks run rampant while SPI is running slow

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

WP:LTA, aggressive edit-warring socks of master Marios2134454 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have infested articles related to AEK Athens F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and are creating articles, edit-warring, and editing at will. The SPI process is running slow, so the socks have plenty of time to cause disruption. The SPI clerk has declared a quacking result, and the case is awaiting admin attention, but none has materialised. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marios2134454. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Dr. K. 17:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the socks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much NinjaRobotPirate. Best regards. Dr. K. 19:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocked?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I did an article on the Hash-Slinging Slasher from the show Spongebob Squarepants. Why have I been blocked?-Patrik Stur March 23, 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrik stur (talk • contribs) 18:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

If you're able to edit here, you're not blocked. Is it possible you were trying to edit while not logged in, and your IP is blocked? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Authoritarian Removal of Important Corrective Edits in Articles Containing False Facts

Yesterday I inserted corrective edits to "Single transferable vote" and a related correction to "President of India" on grounds of inherent (even unavoidably included in the original articles themselves) logical inconsistency/falseness, which I explained in short; I add a copy here for easy referral:

The single transferable vote (STV) is a voting system designed to primarily achieve close to >50% simple majority for the winning candidate through ranked voting in single- or multi-seat organizations or constituencies (electorates/voting districts) [...] The system provides an unreliable random approximation of proportional representation in multi-electorate elections, enables votes to be cast for individual candidates rather than for parties, and—compared to first-past-the-post voting—reduces "wasted" votes (votes on sure losers or sure winners) by transferring them to other candidates. Proportional STV party voting has until now not been used to enable substitution of invalid below-minimum-threshold-party votes with valid-party votes, because it makes nationwide vote counting very complicated.; [The bold type was added; Additional explanation: as the complicated STV-vote-counting is currently only used for candidate election (not party election) in single- or multi-electorate (national) elections, any appearance of nationwide proportionality is through a biased random effect favouring the 2 major parties and unproportionally disadvantaging the minor parties!!!]; and:

The unreliable degree of proportionality of STV election results depends on the district magnitude... [Added explanation: the more electorates/districts, the more proportionality effect for the 2 major parties due to statistical reduction of margin-of-random-error]; further:

The [Indian presidential] election is held in accordance to the system of Proportional representation by means of the Single transferable vote method. [I scratched the bold type on reason that an election of one person(president) cannot logically be proportional; the term "population-adjusted" would be more appropriate, esp. as individual voting-congress members can hold several votes due to lack of the congress's party-proportional constellation];

This authoritarian removal (without any explanation; I invited any objecting editor to discuss the background on my user page) of corrective edits are possibly politically motivated.

I cannot speedily use my e-mail address, therefore also not speedily access Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee in this very important matter that currently has a propaganda effect for not only India's insufficiently democratic "election" system (see Draft: Constitutional Democracy (Republic); Therefore I address this Administrators' Notice Board first. Greetings, --Fritz Fehling (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fritz Fehling: You have been told by me and nearly a half dozen other editors that Wikipedia does not publish original thought and that it requires citation to reliable sources. In this edit you removed content with a polemical edit summary. In this one you added/changed a bunch of material without sources. Those edits were properly reverted. The next step is to open a thread on the respective articles' talk pages and say why you think the change you made should be in the article. Make sure that you are able to present reliable sources to back up the changes you want to make. Jbh ^Talk 23:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked Fritz Fehling indefinitely. Being told Wikipedia does not host original research more than two weeks ago by multiple editors has not changed their goal here as they've continued in the same vein in draft, talk, article, and project admin space. They've had the same problem on Commons where their related contributions have been deleted as out of scope several times. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Should this Draft:Constitutional Democracy (Republic) be deleted or just left in this draft form? MarnetteD|Talk 00:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It is nothing which could ever be an article. Jbh ^Talk 00:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I would leave it at least until the block appeal(s) are dealt with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

G1f2d

Can an admin please clean up the mess that this user G1f2d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created via multiple duplicate articles (among other things). Sakura Cartelet^Talk 02:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Given that content -- a vanity bio -- is duplicated at:

• User:G1f2d
• Germán Franco Díaz
• Wikipedia:G1f2d
• Wikipedia:Germán Franco Díaz
• Wikipedia talk:G1f2d
• Talk:G1f2d/sandbox
• User:G1f2d/sandbox/Germán Franco Díaz
• Template:G1f2d

it's clearly an attempt to spam Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 03:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AIV. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 05:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The user page was deleted by Anthony Appleyard. I deleted the articles created in the wrong namespace (templates, Wikipedia project pages, etc). The mainspace article is tagged with a prod already. I'll leave a warning on G1f2d's talk page. I'm kind of surprised he hasn't been blocked yet. I think a warning might suffice for now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Mongolian Beef personal attack others

In Special:diff/832032179, User:Mongolian Beef had a personal attack on me. He underestimate my English level, and deleted my warning given through Twinkle. Please help check if he had any violations at Wikipedia. — Sanmosa 06:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly adding copyvio to article

At article Badagas, editor User:Badugagowda has been repeatedly pasting copyvio from this history blog page. Editor has been warned about this. It's possible that the editor has language issues, and it's a WP:CIR issue. Once it stops, I'll request revdel of copyvio. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Editor indeffed, copyvios revdeleted. The article history is a travesty - ECP applied as an arbcom enforcement action. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Some edits from IP address

Dear Administrator, I want to draw your kind attention on the dits done from three IP addresses - Special:Contributions/2405:205:600E:4968:0:0:418:A0B0 , Special:Contributions/2405:205:620D:AF8D:0:0:1BB1:90AD and Special:Contributions/2405:205:612E:2055:0:0:1279:38A0. All edits are without references and maximum of the edits are probably wrong. I think same person are using those three IP addresses (I may be wrong). It is really tedious to find all those edits and check their reliability. (for reference see last two sections of my talk page). Could you kindly suggest what we should do? Thanking you, P.Shiladitya^✍talk 09:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Article redirect

2018 Sukma attack was created by an IP and accepted through Articles for creation by User:Ammarpad on 10:59, 14 March 2018‎ (diff). User:D4iNa4 makes a edit on 11:16, 16 March 2018‎ citing "Rv ban evading sock" as edit summary (diff). It was later redirected by User:D4iNa4 with the following edit summary: "small article created by a ban evading sock, redirecting" (diff).

The IP restored it (diff) but surprisingly User:MBlaze Lightning who hadn't made an edit in the 10 days b/w 9 - 19 March, redirects a newly-created article (where he had no previous edit) (diff). The IP restored it (diff) but User:MBlaze Lightning redirected it again (diff). After the IP makes a revert (diff) then comes User:Adamgerber80 and redirects it with the following edit summary: "Discuss on the talk page and gain conensus. this does not pass WP:GNG and was thus redirected." (diff)

User:Samee restored the article with the following edit summary: "Restoring the article passed thru AfC, for other concerns it may be AfDed" (diff). Now User:Capitals00 has redirected with the following edit summary: "Restore redirect, don't revert to sock and get consensus for non-notable subject first" (diff).

What sort of collusion is this b/w the different editors involved? --58.27.134.33 (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• I as a member of WikiProject AfC endorse the acceptance of the draft by Ammarpad. I also stand by my act of restoration of the article as claims about non-notability are implausible. If the subject is indeed non-notable as stated in the last sentence, then the approach should be the AfD.  samee  converse  10:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Editors removing !votes at AFD on their own accord

• I've probably voted at 1000 or more AfDs at this point. And while I may at times be grumpy, pointy, blunt and the like, I have never been accused of trolling and had my !votes struck or removed. I suspect that a few editors folks are working together to delete my votes, as they seem to come all at the same time. Here are three, there may be more:
  • vote struck out , called a troll,
  • Another perfectly good vote, deleted this time,
  • And another one, deleted by a user called "the Master".104.163.147.121 (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)