Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:30, 29 April 2018

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Disruptive edits / edit warring by user יניב הורון

Regarding continues disruptive edits by user:יניב הורון. Based on my recent observations, user repeatedly engages in WP:Edit warring on multiple pages in the past couple of months. Case in point: previously, the article Antisemitism in Ukraine got edit protection in end of March '18 (with me getting a warning from a neutral admin ), however back then we didn't establish a clear WP:Consensus on the talk page regarding the issue at hand (renaming section titles, so they are not misleading/confusing). Now we do have such consensus (every editor that had enough interest, has participated in on the talk page, while user יניב הורון did not participate in the talk page discussion at all), which we have found through dialogue and discussion on the talk page diff. As mentioned above user יניב הורון did not participate in the talk page discussion at all and have begun unilaterally reverting the updates to article's section titles (which were agreed through consensus on the talk page). Given user יניב הורון history of initiating numerous edit:wars over the last two months, his latest edit diff seems like a case of malicious edit warring, where an editor reverts against general consensus and I predict with 99.99% confidence that the user will continue to engage in edit warring the page in the future, against general consensus. Piznajko (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I know you've been told this already, but that's not vandalism. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me, I removed mentioning of vandalizing and changed it to continuous edit warring.--Piznajko (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not see talk page consensus for Piznajko's suggestions - I do not see anyone else agreeing to the proposal. As for this report, it seems Minority Report (film)ish, being based on I predict with 99.99% confidence that the user will continue to engage in edit warring the page in the future. A prediction which seem to apply to Piznajko as well, as he is the one reverting/edit warring against Yaniv. While Piznajko's predictions on other users seem non-actionable, his self predictions should be. In short, unless Piznajko can present where on the talk page there is consensus for his suggestion, then a boomerang may be in order to prevent self predicted edit warring.Icewhiz (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The following edit warring report on Mikhail Bulgakov might be illustrative of the self prediction's veracity. this talk page section (and a few above) might be illustrative regarding perception of consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Not bad Icewhiz, I see you're applying the old-as-the-world-itself-playbook rule #1 of discredit the editor-of-interest by referencing an unrelated-discussion-that-did-not-involve-the-user-being-discussed-here, so that the discussion would be about disliked-editor rather than the actual the-subject-of-discussion-editor. Well, if you're playing it that way - that's fine too - it's obvious you're trying to steer the conversation away from user יניב הורון and do a switcheroo, where instead of יניב הורון it would be me would be me who'd neeed to defend his edits. Fine, I'll follow your bait: regarding, you referencing this talk page section the discussion on Mikhail Bulgakov as an illustration of "my perception of consensus" - I never claimed there was consensus on the talk page of that article; we had plently of discussion there, which led to no consensus and all additions proposed by me were removed. Regarding an an edit warring report against me on this same article on Mikhail Bulgakov - it was civilly settled since unlike the editor of interest (e.g., יניב הורון) I actually engage in discussion and try to explain my edits on a talk page to try and find consensus on edits/new content among editors. Lastly, garding your request to show proof of consensus found on the talk page - please read the discussion that I have referenced - it clearly shows consensus that the section titles should be renamed to avoid confusion - see last relevant-to-discussion-about-updating-titles comment by one of the editors engaged in the discusson on the TP - beyond that point discussion went into direction of content, which is beyong the scope of that disucssion (and yes, there was no consensus on the content of the article, but I never claimed there was any consensus on the content of the article, precisely because my proposed changes were specifically about updating section titles to avoid the confusion of the old section titles) ps. it's commendable that you're trying to help your countryman, but there's no need to resort to ill-hidden personal attacks on me in order to achieve that.--Piznajko (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

As someone uninvolved in the page - I do not see support for your position. As for Bulgakov (a page I only got involved with due to the RfC) - I would not say the resolution was as amicable as you present - you were clearly acting against consensus (IIRC a 5 vs. 1 situation), repeatedly inserting content that other editors rejected. To your credit, you did drop the stick after the EW report. As for this report - you basically complaining based on your prediction of Yaniv's future editing (on a page where it seems there is no consensus either way.Icewhiz (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if you're pretending unintentionally that you don't see that the consensus was reached on the talk page of Antisemitism in Ukraine on the specific issue of titles headers (which is unlikely given the sheer number of years you've been on Misplaced Pages and your experience) or you just doing it intentionally for obvious reason.--Piznajko (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

User account only a few months old seems extremely familiar with how things work here.. No way newbies are familiar with obscure policies as seen in the wditsummaries.--Moxy (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Moxy, to be fair, they made some pretty new mistakes with the Arab-Israeli conflict, and as editing that and Jewish topics is one of their main areas of interest, it was likely quite the introduction to obscure Misplaced Pages behavioral policy. I had to block them for 500/30 violations, and NeilN's recent block of them is also for something in the AE area that lends more to inexperience than anything else. Having their TP on my watchlist because of the initial block, I've never really suspected socking. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

look at the early edit summaries not what we see from new people.--Moxy (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

With their first edit they perfectly used a template. On their second day of editing they were aware of policies such as WP:ERA and WP:Sandwich. These while suspicious looking to some are not indications of socking unless they are similar to another user. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It may be suspicious, but do we have any solid evidence to assert with confidence that this user is a sock puppet as what's being implied in these responses here? We should either be filing an SPI if we have this evidence or we should remain focused on the issue at hand. ~Oshwah~ 02:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

To be frank, his edits at the very first days of his registration was odd to me, too. However, I'm not saying he's certainly a "sock puppet", since that needs "solid evidence" as Oshwah said. --Mhhossein 05:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like the underlying issue here is if יניב הורון is/was edit warring and if action should be taken against the user, or not. The last warning I've seen on the user's talk page for 3RR violations or edit warring was back on the 26th of March. I understand that the edits recently made were misinterpreted as vandalism and the incorrectly stated warnings left on the user's talk page have been modified since this was pointed out, but that's not fair on יניב הורון. To have such such warnings left incorrectly and then changed to state that these are now edit warring notices, and then given the expectation that this should suffice as a fair warning and action taken upon the user isn't the right way to properly address the problem. As far as I'm concerned, this user hasn't been given a proper and fair warning for edit warring or violation of 3RR recently (which should be provided first, and with a report or escalation to follow if the user continues the behavior despite being given the warning) and taking action upon יניב הורון is not justifiable at this time. ~Oshwah~ 06:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the statement I made above was not meant to call Piznajko out, scold him in any way, or to make him feel bad over what happened at all. I want to state openly that mistakes are a normal part of learning, gaining experience, and becoming a better editor - they happen. Hell, I still make mistakes, and I've made more than my fair share of them over the years that I've been here. I don't hold the mistakes against him and I know that he'll walk away from this ANI with more experience and understanding because the mistakes happened. Just don't repeat them... lol ;-) ~Oshwah~ 16:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• I would suggest to topic ban Piznajko from subjects related to Jewish history.

1. Piznajko continued edit war on page Antisemitism in Ukraine even after receiving a warning about it from admin . He was so upset that he even brought a complaint about another user from Israel (with whom he edit war) to this noticeboard. Why? This is hard to say, but one of the changes he edit war about was removal of anti-Jewish "pogroms" from two titles on the page ("Pogroms during the Russian Revolution of 1905" and "Other pogroms during the Russian Revolution") and from a legend to a picture ("Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire").
2. He now edit war on page Antisemitism in the Russian Empire: , . Why? Notice that he again edit war to remove information about pogroms from the lead of the page. Why? He could not explain .
3. He also contentiously argued with several contributors on talk page page of article Joseph Brodsky. Why? He makes this comment. So, according to him, "Based on talk page he is of both Ukrainian and Jewish ancestry, so given that we are talking about Brodsky who was of Russian and Jewish ancestry, I believe can be viewed as a neutral editor." What? Why it matters to Piznajko so much that the subject of the page was Jewish (Piznajko tried to include negative and undue information about him on the page ) and that the WP contributor was Jewish?

I do not think Piznajko should edit such subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

1. I don't see edit warring in either of those articles by Piznajko. I see WP:BRD and attempts to follow WP:RS.
2. Disagreement is not automatically "contentious." If I understand the comment, Piznajko's suggesting you solicit the opinion of an editor most likely to disagree with him. That's ideal behavior.

I can't tell whether your misinterpretation is unintentional or an attempt at WP:GAMING but either way it's concerning. 198.98.51.57 (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can be wrong. Maybe Piznajko is simply the case of WP:Not here. Here is their recent edit history. During a couple of months he follows a pretty bad pattern: coming to page X (there are five such pages already), edit warring and disputing against consensus with multiple contributors, and wasting time of other contributors without being able to actually improve these pages. But OK, let's wait and see. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

After seeing this , its clear that in fact it is User:Piznajko who is edit warring on that page, against multiple editors.Tritomex (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he certainly does, but why? He simply stalks my edits because we had content disagreements on other pages. No one edited this page for a half of a year . This page was in a poor condition. I looked at it and decided to improve . In a matter of hours Piznajko reverted all my edits here. He never edited this page before. How do I know this is actually a wikistalking, rather than a good faith effort to improve the page? Because

1. Unlike all other contributors, he made absolutely no effort to improve anything on the page. He was only making blind reverts of edits by 4 contributors .
2. He was reverting to an obviously terrible version of the page (it had no lead and a section was based on a single source where each paragraph stared from "Yuri Tabak describes the history of antisemitism in Russia as having ...", "Tabak asserts, however...", "Tabak concedes that the ...", "However, Tabak also notes that ..." "Tabak asserts that...")
3. During discussion on article talk page he failed to explain why he wants to revert to such poor version. He only cried "BRD" or posted something that is not understandable.
4. He also followed my edits elsewhere to post a vote opposite to mine. He never edited this subject too. My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Piznajko is admittedly a relatively inexperienced user. But his POV pushing and edit warring such as in Mikhail Bulgakov are as unsettling as the revert warring to a clearly substandard version in Antisemitism in Russia. A short temporary ban from all Eastern European topics seems to be in order here.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Eastern Europe (or Ukraine related? or at least Ukraine vs. other nationalities) is the problematic topic area. The disruption in Mikhail Bulgakov was on a non-Jewish topic (Bulgakov was (I think) not Jewish) - the issue there were the views of Bulgakov on Ukraine vs. Russia and how much weight to given to modern post-independence Ukrainian views on Bulgakov's views on the matter. As for experience - Piznajko has been edited enwiki since the beginning of 2016 (his 1464 edits are spread out over quite some time) - and he has over 30k edits on a different wiki project.Icewhiz (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you both that a short topic ban from EE subjects could be implemented (and Piznajko had received a notification about DS in this area), but this is something on discretion of admins, and I would rather not push it by making an AE report. Maybe just to close this whole thread about user יניב הורו? My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Anybody using Viatrovych as a reliable source for anything except for views of Viatrovych himself clearly has difficulties understanding WP:RS and ideally would not edit EE topics on the English Misplaced Pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-Protect a BLP

Hello, not sure of the best way to ask this, so I figured I would just jump in. There is a WP:BLP which is frequently edited to include private information that the subject of the page has requested not be posted. The cases of this happening that I have seen weren't from signed in accounts, so I was thinking that semi-protected status might do the trick. The page in question is CGP_Grey. Not sure what other information I should include, please let me know. Zchrykng (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a secret. There are references going back at least six years. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

CBS News reported this person's full name back in 2011. Several other media outlets have also done so. What is the policy based argument for excluding the full name from the biography? Cullen Let's discuss it 01:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME, marginally. I'm of the opinion (an unpopular one, I'm aware) that generally these types of things should not be included if the subject requests it; just because it's reported in the media doesn't mean we have to include it. Compare it to an editor's name - if the media reported linking an account to an individual and someone posted this information on-wiki, that person would be sanctioned for WP:OUTING pretty dang fast. Why would we not extend the same courtesy to our public-facing article subjects? ansh666 03:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not someone who is completely anonymous, as is your example Misplaced Pages editor, Ansh666. This person uses their real initials and their real surname, and their complete name has been mentioned repeatedly in reliable sources for seven years. The Misplaced Pages biography is not their personal social media page where they control the content. I fail to see any reason to keep their full name out of the article. We routinely report the full names of public figures who are best known by shortened versions of their real names. So, why should we make an exception in this case? Cullen Let's discuss it 03:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Where has the subject requested not to have his name used? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

If it helps, I am the person in question and I am requesting here that my name not be listed. I have never in any of the work that I have ever produced intentionally revealed my full name. The places that post my name do so against my wishes. Obviously, I cannot control what Misplaced Pages does, but if you want to know what I request it is to not mention my name. CGPGrey (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

See various comments by User:CGPGrey. I do not know whether the identity has been verified. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, though, does reporting the subject's complete name add anything of value to the article? It seems to read perfectly fine as-is, so why not err on the side of caution and leave it out, right? As I said, I am aware that my extremely privacy-oriented take on BLP isn't particularly popular. ansh666 04:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Does reporting President John Kennedy's full name add anything of value to his article? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ansh666, I an reminded that I recently ran across mention of C. L. R. James, a writer whose work I had first encountered nearly 50 years ago. Curious about his full name, I visited the Misplaced Pages article about him, and discovered his full name, and lots of other useful information about him. That is how encyclopedias ought to work. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. That's not the type of thing that I'd personally ever be curious about. ansh666 05:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Compared to C.L.R James, CGP grey hides his identity online and is a BLP who has requested not to show his name Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

We have had a perfectly good arrangement these past few years of keeping those details off wiki, as the subject had been a Misplaced Pages editor. Fans, of course, insist on writing the narrative and cannot leave well enough alone. I find the details unnecessary and the disclosure to be pure fan service. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I feel compelled to remind people that assertions are not sufficient to move the needle at Misplaced Pages. Evidence is. Per WP:BURDEN, it is imperative that the person wishing to include the real name provide scrupulously reliable sources. Removing such information, where it lacks a direct cite, is perfectly allowed. In summation: what do the sources show: if the name is just kinda "out there" in sources of poor reliability, that's one thing. If the name is well-reported in reliable sources which show that the subject has revealed it, that's another. However, if it is clear that the subject has intentionally kept their name from public sources, then we should err on the side of "doing no harm" and respecting the subject's wishes. Plenty of Misplaced Pages articles are known under pseudonymous titles, like Satoshi Nakamoto, and I see no reason to do differently here. --Jayron32 16:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It would need a solid citation to be included. And if it has that, any claim that the subject wants it excluded would likewise need a solid verification. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Right here and that's not the first time. I think it's reasonable that we suppress some private details when dealing with Wikipedians. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Well the second part is too easy. User:CGPGrey just needs to verify their identity to OTRS by emailing info-enwikimedia.org. And anyway, pretty sure WP:REALNAME applies even to pseudonyms in the case where they are the primary means of identification of a real person, so they probably should do so anyway out of an abundance of propriety. If done, ping me and I'll snatch it out of the queue real quick. A message from the cgpgrey.com domain should work just fine for our purposes. GMG 16:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That would be the point. Someone claiming to be someone is not "solid" evidence. I could claim to actually be Mel Blanc, and the only evidence to disprove it is that he's reportedly deceased. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Verified. GMG 18:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, then it's just a matter of whether his full name can be verified, and I'm not so sure about that. The sources I've seen for it look a little shaky. Then there's always the issue of a subject's notability, but it looks like this one passes that test. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

And I do think the page should be semi'd. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Nah. Not enough disruption to outpace normal reversion and normal consensus building. In fact, this can probably be closed. GMG 22:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Ansh666: could I just ask that you please read WP:Oversight#Policy, paying special attention to the first bolded point and how it might apply to this discussion? AlexEng 01:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

AlexEng, let me start by saying that I am not supporting including this person's full name in the biography at this time, since we now have OTRS verification of the editor's identity, and I think that we should honor his request, based on his wishes and talk page consensus. I am not an oversighter and claim no expertise in the fine points of oversight policy. Feel free to discuss the matter with actual oversighters. But the relevant phrase is "Removal of non-public personal information". (Emphasis added). As I already pointed out, the person's full name was reported by CBS News in 2011. He formerly maintained a website that included the names he now wishes to hide as part of the domain name itself. He uploaded an image to Wikimedia Commons in 2006, crediting that old website as the source of the image, and later uploaded a better version of the same image, crediting his current website. He had a Flikr account that included photos tagged with his full name. I understand that an element of his current online persona is to not mention his full name or include photos of his face, since he now prefers stick figure representation. I get that. But I do not think that there is justification for oversighting since he was once happy to reveal his various names online, and specifically on Wikimedia projects. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to CGPGrey. Are there any inaccuracies in what I wrote above? Cullen Let's discuss it 06:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

From an oversight perspective, I agree with Cullen328 on this one; the content has been in and out of the page's history, and while Grey would prefer for his identity to remain completely anonymous that cat is unfortunately out of the bag. The best we can really do is try to ensure people don't re-add the full name. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

To be fair, Grey has always just said he is not happy with the degree of publicity that being in the page would cause, not that he wants total privacy. I think oversight has been mentioned to him before on Talk:CGP Grey, but he did not respond. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring and accusations by User:Certified Gangsta

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

I was originally just going to request full page protection at WP:RPP. However, after reviewing Certified Gangsta's extensive block log and their current accusations on talk pages and edit summaries, I thought this would be a better venue.

Since March 31, Certified Gangsta has been move warring from the longstanding page name of Devin Hester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to their preferred version of Devin Hester Sr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Open the following diffs (or open Devin Hester's page log) to see their repeated moves from "Devin Hester" to "Devin Hester Sr.":

• March 31
• April 1
• April 23
• April 24

I had started a discussion at Talk:Devin_Hester_Sr.#Sr._suffix, explaining why I thought the established name was WP:COMMONNAME and asking that an WP:RM request be made if anyone wanted to change consensus. EricEnfermero also agreed with my position. In the thread, Certified Gangsta charged: ... you unilaterally changed it without opening a request at WP:RM. Follow your own advise. You're not entitled to your own rules just because you're a sysop.

They also made accusations there of

• Eric Enfermero is hardly a neutral voice and has pretty clearly been Misplaced Pages:Wikistalking me since this exchange on my talk page
• When someone finally stands up to you, you have unsurprisingly resorted to employing low-quality tactics out of personal vendetta (i.e. a low-rent wikistalking harassment campaign) and deliberately trying to sabotage longstanding consensus/compromise.

The edit summary of their most recent revert from April 24 reads: "quit wikistalking and your harassment campaign due to disagreement on another page. consensus reached last november across multiple pages with no incident. Read Misplaced Pages:WIKISTALK for your own benefit"

WP:NPA advises against accusations that lack evidence: "Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."

At List of nicknames used in basketball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Certified Gangsta keeps changing the content to the contested, non-verifiable nickname of "DAR":

• 05:40, 23 April
• 23:56, 23 April
• 07:15, 24 April

Their most recent edit summary from April 24 is again combative: "your version is also unsourced. either remove every single unsourced ones on this list or stop using it as a cheap excuse to keep your preferred version." Per WP:UNSOURCED: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material ... I have no opinion on the original text, which I did not add, but Certified Gangsta deflects the onus of their own unverifiable additions. Their response is also WP:POINTY, implying that all unsourced content, even if it is not contested, needs to be automatically removed if their own edit is. (Note: For the record, the existing nickname of DLo, though uncited, is verifiable at https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/russeda01.html)

Finally, Certified Gangsta's current behavior appears to be similar to logs from their block history, which includes "Disruptive editing", "Violation of Arbitration case restrictions", 3RR, and "accusing established editors of vandalism".

I am requesting that Certified Gangsta cease the move warring, stop re-adding contested text without a citation, and end their combative behavior.—Bagumba (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think you're requesting too little Bagumba. Save a really convincing apologetic reply from Certified Gangsta, this is going to be an indef block by the time this thread closes. L0URDES 11:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the move and move protected the article. I'd like to know what Certified Gangsta is referring to with "current fairly longstanding version" in this. If it's the version they renamed on March 31st then we have a case of WP:TE here. --NeilN 13:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Longstanding? Not really. CG has moved an article to his desired name, and was reverted by 3 different users 4 times, since March 2018, based on the logs. I'm holding off judgement until Certified Gangsta comments here.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• When the naming issue was discussed at WT:NFL in November, CG claimed that discussing the naming at the WP instead of at each individual article was a violation of WP:CANVASS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Since potential WP:TE was mentioned above and some are also getting into the substance of Certified Gangsta's arguments, their revert edit summaries refer multiple times to an alleged November consensus that supports adding suffixes to bios' article titles, but does anyone see that kind of consensus in the full archive of that Nov discussion?—Bagumba (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

    I see a consensus favoring names commonly used by sources. That doesn't seem to support CG's assertion a consensus exists.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• WP:OWN accusations This might be another common charge from Certified Gangsta. At Talk:Devin_Hester_Sr.#Sr._suffix, he wrote: "As for Bagumba, I highly suggest you read WP:OWN in light of your conduct at List of nicknames used in basketball." I came across this same style back in November 2017 at Jamie Collins (American football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), where they were similarly move warring to change the title to Jamie Collins Sr.. With this move, he accuses the other editor that "you're in violation to WP:OWN, discuss in talkpage before moving again" So the pattern seems to be that someone else must be WP:OWNer if there is conflict (and not them), someone else is responsible to start the discussion and get consensus (not them), and someone else has to source the rest of the article if Certified's one unsourced edit isn't allowed.—Bagumba (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• See also, Golden Tate III. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia 21:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, an WP:OWN accusation there too. A 2nd editor has now reverted Certified's move.—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• I'm waiting to hear Certified Gangsta's side of the story, but I realize they don't edit on an everyday basis. L0URDES 00:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'll give y'all a run-down as to why I am extremely upset about the recent chain of events. Last October, I proposed that James Mattis' page be moved to Jim Mattis in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME policy and tried to gain consensus. 3 users colluded to oppose it and, instead of attacking the merit of my proposal, dredged up my block log from 10 years ago (notice a pattern here?) in order to undermine my credibility, tarnish my record (which I am very proud of btw), and sully my character (note User:Chris troutman's extremely uncivil edit summary "get off my lawn"). They also tried to get me to leave Misplaced Pages altogether. I was very frustrated and decided to take an indefinite leave from the project.

Fast forward to late November, I approached User:Bishonen on her talkpage and requested her advice on the Jim Mattis situation . Bish agreed that User:Chris troutman and others were in violation of WP:OWN (IMO it was more gang-patrol than OWN) and User:RexxS, who noticed our conversation on Bish's talkpage , was kind enough to step in .

That was when a funny thing happened. User:Corkythehornetfan, who was so adamantly against the move mere weeks ago, suddenly sang a different tune and supported the move . User:Chris troutman, who had relentlessly hurled insults and made personal attacks against me, didn't even make a peep. And the move was supported overwhelmingly Talk:Jim_Mattis#Requested_move_23_November_2017. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Corky and Chris had opposed the move not due to any genuine policy disagreement, but personal vendetta. Any fair-minded observer would agree with such an assessment. This level of hypocrisy, vitriol, score-setting, and battleground tactics (Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground have absolutely no place on Misplaced Pages.

The present situation so far seems like deja vu. I made a good-faith edit to List of nicknames used in basketball , changing it to a more commonly used nickname . Want source? This article alone called D'Angelo Russell DAR at least NINE times. He was also named DAR here and here . And frankly, I've heard more casual fans use DAR moniker than User:Bagumba's preferred version.

The crux of the issue is Bagumba clearly feels he owns this particular page and is free to add/remove any nicknames he likes without consensus and/or sources to back it up. Don't believe me? Check out the history of that page. He was revert-warring with everybody before I even touched that page and selectively mass-removing nicknames he personally doesn't like . Never mind the fact that the vast majority of the nicknames on that page are either poorly sourced or unsourced. In his role as the self-appointed arbiter of basketball nicknames, only he has the authority to decide which nicknames can say and which nicknames should go. Did he week consensus on the talkpage before his unilateral changes and mass removals? No. Did he remove every nickname without sources on that page for the sake of consistency? No. Oh, the hypocrisy.

Devin Hester Sr. is a page Bagumba has shown zero interest in before our run-in at List of nicknames used in basketball and a cut-and-dry case of wikistalking. Explain how Bagumba suddenly developed an interest in Hester's page TEN MINUTES after he reverted me on List of nicknames used in basketball ? Is there another explanation other than wikistalking? Hester's page was sitting there peacefully without incident for over 3 weeks with almost 10 intervening edits before he injected himself. The goal clearly was to taunt, harass, humiliate, and bait me into an edit war with him and then cynically exploit that as a precursor to boot me off the project because (and only because) I dared to challenge his "ownership" of one of his pet pages (List of nicknames used in basketball). Admin User:Jehochman and admin User:Bishonen are very familiar with this cynical tactics and how User:Ideogram and his allies employed them against me Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram#Editor_taking_advantage_of_Gangsta's_1RR_restriction_to_taunt_and_harass. During Ideogram's community ban case, Jechoman wrote that, Ideogram targets users who have been in some kind of trouble and are trying to correct themselves. Ideogram baits and trolls his targets until they relapse, and then he seeks to have them banned. This cynical behavior should not be tolerated at Misplaced Pages .

Bagumba's current behavior frankly doesn't seem all that different. And now Bagumba and others I had previously unrelated disputes with feel emboldened to dance on my grave . , just like the Jim Mattis situation all over again. Interestingly enough, not a single one of them bothered to start Misplaced Pages:Requested moves or seek consensus in the talkpage before moving it to their preferred version. Not a single one of them bothered to follow their own advice. This is frankly an interesting case study. When someone with the knowledge, experience, and passion to improve this encyclopedia in good faith is being treated like shit, it doesn't take a genius figure out why editor retention is such a big issue.

I have no interest in rehashing ancient history from 10 years ago, which frankly caused me a lot of pain and anguish. But given that every time someone gets into a content dispute or policy dispute with me, they try to gain an upper hand by citing my block log (the aforementioned Chris Troutman and now Bagumba), I feel I'm entitled to defend my record. First of all, most my blocks were overturned and some of them were apologies or 1-second block from other admins noting that the block had no merit and did not meet community consensus. User:FT2 was an arbitrator at the time and he correctly noted on my block log that User:Gwen Gale's block was highly questionable (we were rival candidates for ArbCom at the time and she was trying to gain an upper hand by shutting down my insurgent candidacy) and many admonished her for blocking me (she came under fire on AN/I and ultimately lost the election). I have no comment on the 3 ArbCom enforcement blocks other than to note that ArbCom lifted my editing restriction after the aforementioned Ideogram plot was fully exposed and he was community-banned for trolling me. I've considered myself fully rehabilitated since and have a clear conscience.

The User:Kurykh's block was a mistaken 3RR and he corrected it himself as he noted in the block log. The Viridae block, which came during the height of Ideogram's harassment campaign to troll me, came under intense controversy on AN/I because he blocked me for violating the spirit of 3RR, yet didn't block Ideogram who actually violated the letter of 3RR. Great double standard there. Neutral observer User:Bladestorm noted at the time The person who actually reported the "edit war" was, in fact, the same editor who avoided being blocked for literally violating 3RR. Seriously, what sort of message does this say? Ideogram clearly violates 3RR, and isn't blocked. Gangsta doesn't technically violate it, and is blocked, when he's reported by Ideogram. Does nobody else see the inconsistency here? "Do as I say, not as I do"? (For reference, I'm not saying that ideogram should've been blocked either. But it's certainly a double standard, and a disproportionate application of policies; especially for very-much related cases. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive215#Certified.Gangsta. What was his reward for voicing his unbiased two cent on AN/I? He got harassed and stalked by Ideogram Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive215#Separate_Dispute_between_Bladestorm_and_Ideogram. Notice a pattern here?

The User:David Levy block is now filed under Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars(Misplaced Pages:Lamest_edit_wars/User_pages#User:Certified.Gangsta) and he came under heavy fire Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/UI_spoofing and ultimately forced to note on my block log that his block did not meet community consensus.

The circumstances of Centrx' vindictive one-second block (aimed solely to assassinate my character) was discussed at-length here Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive65#One_second_blocks (User:User:AuburnPilot noted that it was "harassment/intimidation") and ultimately led to concrete policy changes to prohibit such vindictive abuse Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive65#Policy_edit.

Almost everyone agreed on AN/I that that Od Mishehu's 1-second dummy entry on my block log was in poor taste.

In short, I've taken a lot of abuse on Misplaced Pages and I'm sick and tired of being treated this way. It is impossible to edit when I'm being hounded, stalked, harassed, having my name dragged through the mud, my record distorted, my name sullied, and my character assassinated over every minor disagreements. Disagree with me on content and policies all you want, but don't resort to character assassination and personal ad hominem attack by citing blocks from over 10 years ago. To stoop that low frankly just shows your argument has no merit and how desperate you are. It is utterly pathetic. I probably won't come back for very long time, if ever. I would greatly appreciate if someone can nominate List of nicknames used in basketball for deletion. It is unencyclopedic and frankly should've been AFD/purged 10 years ago, per many past precedents of similar pages, such as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of teen idols of the 2000s. To have a page like this frankly reflects poorly on the project because it serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, extremely subjectively, and poor sourced and researched.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• If I understand this, you justify your behavior because you believe that you have been a victim at James Mattis, a page I am not involved with, where you say others displayed OWNership. You now say that List of nicknames used in basketball is "poor sourced and researched", yet you repeatedly made an unsourced change to it, even after I contested and asked you for a source. You call my bold edits to remove unsourced text that I could not verify as evidence of OWN, even though all my edits there have an edit summary explaining why I contested their inclusion, and there being no history of edit warring on my part on that page. And now you "would greatly appreciate if someone can nominate List of nicknames used in basketball for deletion"? You then charge that there is a "cut-and-dry case of wikistalking" because I later made a change to a grand total of—one page (Devin Hester Sr.)—that you also edited, and even though I left an edit summary explaining why I contested your move, initiated the thread at Talk:Devin_Hester#Sr._suffix for which there is consensus to remove "Sr.", and even after an admin just reverted your move again and move protected the page for 3 months.—Bagumba (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Having looked at your block log, I agree that it isn't fair for other editors to be using it against you like that. I do not, however, appreciate being falsely accused of gravedancing. If I have had prior conflicts with you, I do not remember them. As for my decision to revert your moves without going through RM, I believe the onus is on you to go through RM when you are the one seeking to change a long-standing page title. When you make such a change unilaterally, I feel no obligation to go through RM to reverse it. Lepricavark (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• "I probably won't come back for very long time, if ever." Certified Gangsta, if you're serious about this, then I'll archive this discussion and we all can move on without wasting our time on your explanation. So do confirm (because if you're not retiring, I'll list out the reasons you should be topic-banned). L0URDES 10:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Lourdes: your link for "explanation" is objectionable. A long block log doesn't give other users carte blanche for abuse, especially not an administrator such as yourself. Please strike. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC). Adding: I see you handed in your admin flag for "a couple of days" in February and have not yet reclaimed it. Even so. Bishonen | talk 12:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC).

• Sure. I actually expected this to be a bit on the edge. Struck. L0URDES 12:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Since I was pinged... my actions were not based off of a "personal vendetta". They were solely based off of a) I didn't believe it was the common name at the time (from what I could find) and b) I believed that because he is a high-profiled official that a RM should take place... all of this can be seen in my revert of the page move. I had had no interaction with Certified Gangsta until that moment and have not had any interaction with them since then that I can recall. I have no idea why Certified Gangsta would assume that it was a "personal vendetta" nor do I care, but I can assure everyone here that it wasn't. I am not going to watch this thread so if someone needs/wants me, you'll have to ping me. Corky 18:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Since I was pinged... I agree with elected non-admin Lourdes. Certified Gansta finds utility in pointing to others to bolster a claim that they're being persecuted, like re-hashing what I said in October of 2017. I gather that I should have continued to argue about Jim/ James Mattis just to look consistent, rather than recognize that a pile of sources and the opinions of editors went the other way. So much for me trying to be a better editor by backing off. Certified Gangsta is the common point in all of these arguments. I'll leave it to admins to determine if Certified Gansta is right and everyone else is wrong. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• I recommend closing this thread as no action. Given that CG has now retired, it doesn't seem necessary to take any further action at this time. However if they do come back and resume their behavior, a topic ban discussion might be in order.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Considering the tone in Certified Gangsta's response, I see it more as pouting than having "retired". A topic ban would not be appropriate, as their disruption had not been limited to a niche area. Certified's modus operandi has been to blame everyone but themselves, and cry OWN and Wikistalking just because others disagree. Edit warring over a page move and claiming their bold move is longstanding consensus after only 3 weeks is tendentious. This was not an isolated heated moment. I've seen no good faith from them. I see no indication that this 12-year editor understands what they have been doing wrong, nor would behave any differently if allowed to return without an explanation of how they will be different. Asking only that would be preventative and not punitive.—Bagumba (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Film Fan and poster uploads

Film Fan always uploads posters without updating sources, and ignores advices to update sources. The current poster for Venom is not found anywhere on the net, and he replaced User:Brojam's legitimately sourced version (http://collider.com/new-venom-trailer/ ) as well as mine (http://www.impawards.com/2018/venom_ver2.html) without saying anything. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

While I agree a proper source is needed, I easily found that poster image on the net from numerous sources via Google Image Search. --Masem (t) 05:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: The specific poster caption is what is difficult to find, I believe. --NeilN 05:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the caption (in the film infobox) is an issue. There's generally a clear distinction between a teaser poster which usually lacks a textblock identifying key stars, director, etc., and the theatrical release that does have that, and that can be made by examining the poster image itself. ( eg this edit is perfectly fine). It's the lack of a legitimate source in the File: space that is a problem. Eg taking the same edit, the new image uploaded File:Hotel Artemis poster.png has a nonsense source "The poster art can or could be obtained from the distributor." that fails NFC requirements. --Masem (t) 05:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Aha, I see from below what the "caption" issue is, that being the film date under the title. I do see a large amount of variety in that in Google Image Search, looks like many regional versions, but yes, there's no immediate source for one that has "October 4". I see "10.4.18", "4 October", and "Coming Soon" among variations, but not the one uploaded. That is definitely a problem. --Masem (t) 13:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Note that initial issue was raised for edit warring. Film Fan was given a 1RR for this in the past, which is still in place. Along with the continued edit-warring, the lack of adding any rationles for new poster uploads suggest a much serious issue. Lugnuts 07:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ohhh, Lugnuts. Lugnuts, Lugnuts, Lugnuts. You never miss a chance, do you. There hasn't been any edit-warring. But grasp at any straws you can, mate. — Film Fan 09:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The version uploaded by Film Fan reads the date as "OCTOBER 5" whereas my version (from IMPAwards) and Brojam's version (from Collider) read "10.5.18". I cannot find the "OCTOBER 5" version anywhere on the net, and using this version in Google's Search-by-image feature, this is all I found. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

If I get emails from distributors, "The poster art can or could be obtained from the distributor" is perfectly acceptable. — Film Fan 09:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Film Fan: Can you please explain why you replaced well-sourced versions with yours? --NeilN 12:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Because it's from the distributor and has the date clearly marked on it. — Film Fan 13:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not acceptable. The source needs to meet WP:V, and that means that a published version needs to be identified. --Masem (t) 13:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"Because it's from the distributor and has the date clearly marked on it"... But the source you've given is GoldPoster; isn't that just a Chinese knock-off site? Neil S. Walker (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Now I think Film Fan is receiving emails containing film posters, directly sent by the distributors. So does this violate WP:COI? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No, or at least, not anything actionable. It is a violation of WP:V, private emails are not usable sources. We need something previously published, and ideally from a reasonable reliable source (to know they likely didn't edit the poster, etc.). For purposes of NFC, we should be treating this as a citation, so core parts of WP:V should be followed. --Masem (t) 14:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of FF's posters don't seem to have any rationale, all failing WP:V. This could be 2018's SvG problem. Lugnuts 14:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, that's not an issue. In that list, where there is no text in the third column, those are all updated images where the original uploaded supplied a rationale. When FF uploads a new image, they add a rationale. They are following NFC in all cases except a valid source field. --Masem (t) 14:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

So, you're saying that when I add a poster from a PR email, I have to find some website that is also hosting the file? News to me. — Film Fan 14:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Film Fan: It's analogous to a well-known scientist emailing an unpublished paper to an editor. We're not going to use that in an article either. --NeilN 15:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay. — Film Fan 12:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Obstructive, spiteful administration by BrownHairedGirl

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

User:BrownHairedGirl and I had a dust-up several weeks ago, and it appears that the fallout from that collision is leading her to preference the thwarting of my editing efforts over the general improvement of the encyclopedia. This collision started in mid-February when I made a speedy group category renaming nomination for Category:Amherst Lord Jeffs and its subcategories. You can see that nomination and its discussion here.

In that discussion, I made an accusation that BrownHairedGirl was being "intellectually dishonest". The reason I made that accusation is that in her opposition to the speedy nomination, she stated "WP:C2D is inapplicable because there is no head article: Amherst Lord Jeffs and Amherst Mammoths both redirect to Amherst College#Athletics, which mentions neither 'Mammoths' nor 'Lord Jeffs'". I responded that "'Mammoths' is mentioned in the infobox and the 'Mascot' section of Amherst College," to which she replied "please read WP:C2D. It's not long and not complex. And it doesn't mention infoboxes." I considered this an intellectually dishonest move because her first comment there suggested that the presence of "Mammoths" at Amherst College would justify a C2D speedy move, but when I showed her that "Mammoths" did indeed appear there, she made a non-sequitur about "infoboxes" not being mentioned. In fact, C2D makes no reference whatsoever to any parts of articles other than their title.

BrownHairedGirl, requested that I retract this assertion of intellectual dishonesty on my talk page on February 12, just after User:SMcCandlish posted an admonishment about it there as well. Rather than explain my accusation, as I have now done here, I decided to simply move on with more productive editing.

I opened a full renaming nomination for the Amherst Lord Jeffs / Mammoths categories on February 22; see Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 22#Amherst Mammoths. It quickly drew unanimous support, with User:Cbl62, User:Rikster2, User:Ejgreen77, SMcCandlish, and User:UCO2009bluejay weighing in during the first two days or so. User:Paulmcdonald later added support as well. When more than a week had elapsed without closure of the nomination, despite unanimous support, I pinged BrownHairedGirl to close it, given that she appears to be most active admin at CFD, and in an effort to put the earlier episode behind us. To that she replied "@Jweiss11: after the vicious personal abuse which you heaped on me when you tried misusing WP:CFDS to do this renaming, the answer is "no way". Some other admin will close this discussion in due course.". That nomination was finally closed by User:DexDor on March 24. A similar nomination that I made for Category:Cal State East Bay Pioneers football similarly languished for nearly a month despite unanimous support. See: Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 4#Cal State Hayward Pioneers football.

On April 3, I nominated Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes for deletion; see Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 3#Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes. User:Bagumba was the only other editor to weigh in on this discussion, offering a neutral opinion. This time, User:BrownHairedGirl seemed have no lack in motivation closing the discussion, perhaps too quickly, closing it as "no consensus" on April 11.

Given the lack of resolution on this item, I opened a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football, asking other editors there if they would a support a second nomination to delete the category and pinged User:UCO2009bluejay, User:Corkythehornetfan, and User:Billcasey905 since they are active editors of college sports-related categories and navboxes. All three said they would support the nomination, so I renominated the category on April 24, at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 24#Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes. The next day BrownHairedGirl closed the discussion as "speedy keep per WP:CSK. The same proposal was made by the same nominator at CfD 2018 April 3, and closed on 11 April as no consensus. Bringing the same proposal back again less than 2 weeks later is blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping. Leave it for at least a few months."

I believe this to a misapplication of WP:CSK. It's clear that BrownHairedGirl is putting her personal feelings and desires for retribution before the best interests of the encyclopedia. The remedies I seek here are 1) the re-opening of the April 24 nomination for Category:Big Sky football team navigational boxes and 2) an injunction against BrownHairedGirl from closing any further CFD nominations I may make. The community may also want to further investigate her behavior, assess whether she has abused her administrative powers, and determine if it is appropriate that she retain them.

I'm regretful that it's come to this. All our time would be better spent improving the content of the encyclopedia, but we have an obstructive situation here that requires resolution. Thanks everyone for your time and interest in this matter. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand your complaint. You personally attacked an editor by calling her intellectually dishonest. You decided not to explain to her why you called her that. You then ask for her to close a discussion about the category where you feel she was intellectually dishonest and she refuses. She later closes a discussion not in the favor of what you proposed and closes it a second time. You disagree with the close and now want her to not close any CFD you open and you even think she should possibly lose her admin privileges. Did I get the summary right? ~ GB fan 17:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

GB, no, I would say you are missing all the spitefulness and obstruction by BrownHairedGirl in that summary. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In what summary? Are you saying I missed you being spiteful about not telling her why you felt she was intellectually dishonest? ~ GB fan 17:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No, at the time I figured the explanation would fall on deaf ears. I did not simply move on to spite her, but, rather, in the interest of focusing instead on other things to improve the encyclopedia. I've made the full explanation now for everyone to see. Perhaps you can address the spitefulness of BrownHairedGirl, which is driving administrative decisions two months later that thwart the improvement of the encyclopedia? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

She probably doesn't think she is being spiteful either. One No Consensus close along with a speedy close is not enough to drag someone to ANI. Refusing to close a CFD is not a reason either. You should drop this now. ~ GB fan 17:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

How much more would you need to see before you thought an ANI was warranted? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't give a definitive answer to that question. More than what you have given here and not come here as part of the problem. You also need to try to solve this directly with the editor prior to coming here. You started this by attacking an editor, walking away without having the decency to explain yourself. From What I see you have never tried to calmly discuss your concerns. Your latest discussion on her page just inflames the situation. There and here you talk about use of admin powers, what admin powers has she used, you never give one admin power she has used. ~ GB fan 18:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was clear that the admin power I'm talking about is closing CFDs. This thread right here qualifies as an attempt to calmly discuss my concerns. My attack of this editor was a clear adjudiction of her behavior and argument style in a discussion. My sense was that she knew exactly why I was called her intellectually dishonest. The problem is that when people are intellectually dishonest, they'll typically never admin to it no matter what justification is later given. My hope is that third parties here can make their own rational judgement. BrownHairedGirl has also made attacks on me, far more disjointed from the simple logic of our arguments than my assertion of here intellectually dishonest, e.g. her accusing me of throwing a "trantrum" in that original speedy CFD discussion, then offering a psychological diagnosis of projection on her talk page today. I can get over the personal attacks. What really concerns me is that she's using her administrative powers to obstruct the improvement of the encyclopedia for what I can only imagine is spite against me. It's in everyone's interest to nip that in the bud now. That's why is have opened this ANI discussion. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Closing a CFD is not an admin power. Non admins close discussions all the time. Bringing anything to ANI is not a calm discussion with the editor in question to try to resolve the issue. ANI is for things that can't be worked out by the editors involved, you haven't even tried to work through this with her. ~ GB fan 19:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Closing a CFDs of the complexity of the Ahmester Mammoths one is effectively an admin power when you have User:Marcocapelle testify that "This is too big for a non-admin to close", as he did at here. It's clear that BrownHairedGirl is acting in a state of hostility and obstruction with respect to me, two months after the fact. Third party invention is required here. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_22#Amherst_Mammoths. She didn't even close it and when it was closed it was by a non-admin. How did she misuse any admin power? ~ GB fan 20:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

She refused to close that one when asked. She later improperly closed the the Big Sky navbox category CFDs. This is clearly because she had a beef with me and appears to delight in misdirecting my efforts to improve the database into a bureaucratic run-around where she can. The latter constitutes clear abuse of admin powers. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You REALLY need to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline --Tarage (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, I am indeed familiar with that essay. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Really? Because it runs contrary to the statement "appears to delight in misdirecting my efforts to improve the database into a bureaucratic run-around where she can". Refusing to close something on YOUR timetable is not "bureaucratic run-around". --Tarage (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I would say that the closure of Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_3#Category:Big_Sky_football_team_navigational_boxes does seem very premature does it not? One neutral comment and no relists is hardly enough discussion for no consensus Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It probably is premature but I don't think that is a reason to drag someone to ANI. ~ GB fan 17:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• You can't call someone "intellectually dishonest" and then decide "I want to move on" without so much as explaining that comment, It's no wonder BHG is rather pissed off with you, I would suggest this gets closed with the OP warned not to make silly remarks like that again. BOOMERANG applies. –Davey2010 20:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010, I've clearly explained my accusation of intellectual dishonesty here. Can you address the logic of it before dismissing it as "silly"? The larger and more important issue here is whether BHG being rather pissed off with me warrants her obstructing CFD nominations that I opened two months later. Do you really thing that's warranted? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes you explained here but you didn't explain to her at the time, The CFD was closed prematurely but I'm not seeing anything that warrants a case such as this, Only one person's gonna get blocked and it's not BHG. –Davey2010 20:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Boomerang. Jweiss11, it's one thing to be abrasive to someone. It's another to then ping them specifically and demand they do something for you. She did not attack you, she told you she wouldn't close it, and then you pushed the issue. You got exactly what you asked for and then decided that the smart move was to come here and whine about it. Quite frankly, I don't see her being intellectually dishonest, I see you failing to be intellectual. --Tarage (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, I did not claim that she attacked me when she told me she wouldn't close that CFD. The attacks, if any, by her were made earlier ("tantrum") and then later ("projection"). The personal attacks by her are not my main concern. My main concern is her retributive obstruction. So, what I asked for is to have her obstruct my CFD nominations in perpetuity? That sort of long-term retribution, which is at odds with that actual improvement of the encyclopedia, is the problem here. That doesn't concern you? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What part of "it was not obstruction" do you not understand? Obstruction would be to prevent you from getting things done. Refusing to close something for you is not obstruction. Admins don't HAVE to close whatever you tell them to. Quite frankly, the fact that several people have told you that you are wrong and that you still refuse to get that point is far more troubling. Again, I highly suggest you accept that you were wrong in filing this report and move on. We're telling you that you are digging yourself into a hole; your response should not be to keep digging. You won't like where you end up. --Tarage (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing a case here. Categories deletion is pretty low priority non-urgent stuff. Lots of Admins are a lot worse to editors than what you describe. Legacypac (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like we have a wider problem with admin behavior then. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Eyes still needed on Jweiss11

I drafted a long reply to this I wrote a long reply but the discussion was closed by @Bbb23 so I posted it on my talk rather than discard it.

However as I was wrapping up I spotted that @Jweiss11 has posted at WT:CFB: My ANI was dismissed. I suggest someone else nominate this category unless you want to live with for I don't know how long.

It seems that the personal attacks, forum-shopping and WP:IDHT is now being followed by recruitment of meatpuppets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The hypocrisy here is utterly stunning, and your characterization of me collaborating with other college football editors to improve college football-related content is absurd. It's clear I can't a get fair assessment here. Shall we all move on? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. Everyone told you to stop, and your response was to drop a borderline legal threat. What is wrong with you? --Tarage (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Jweiss11: if you want to move on, then simply accept the the ANI closure and withdraw your call for meatpuppets to make an end-run around procedure.

If you want to challenge a CfD closure, WP:DRV is thataway. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Meh. If editors who frequently edit in areas related to the category in question are likely to reach a consensus that the category should be deleted, I see no compelling reason to prevent them from doing so. Lepricavark (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

PS here's the borderline legal threat. Jweiss11, see WP:NLT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I've retracted my use of the word "libel" and restated it in way should not imply a legal threat. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, you attack BHG (putting aside the politically correct bullshit way of saying lying "intellectually dishonest", my ass), then when called out for it, don't even have the good grace to either justify that attack or apologise for it. The next month, you pinged BHG to close another discussion with what I see as a contemptuous display of arrogance (Can we close this slam dunk? @BrownHairedGirl: how about you do the honors?), then double down with a smug @BrownHairedGirl: nice to see that were are moving forward and putting the improvement of the encyclopedia first. Other admins, can we get some closure on this long overdue and unnecessarily laborious slam dunk move?. I see no problem in BHG's close of this discussion. It had been open for 8 days with only a couple of comments. A CFD is not a RFC so your suggestion that she closed it perhaps too quickly can be dismissed. Her second close was probably not that wise given the established history between you two. Yeah, no, you don't have a case here Blackmane (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. BHG's second close was inadvisable, especially given that a consensus, established by editors familiar with the subject, was likely forthcoming. That being said, the reaction is quite over the top. Jweiss11, I like you and the invaluable work you do, but please let this go. Like Blackmane said, you really don't have a case. Lepricavark (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Look again at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_24#Category:Big_Sky_football_team_navigational_boxes. At the time I closed it, there was one response, and no indication of any wider interest. The nom did not disclose the wikiProj discussion, so there was no evidence of any wider interest, and no indication why JW chose to make a fresh nomination only 13 days after the previous closure. The essay WP:RENOM recommends "generally do not renominate the page for at least two months." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there was only one response, but it had only been open for less than a full 24 hours. I agree that Jweiss11 should have linked the WikiProject discussion. But now that we are all aware that there is wider interest, I don't see any need to keep the discussion closed based on the wording of an essay. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The essay describes isn't a here's-how-I-wanna-change-the-norms essay. It describes normal practice. WP:FORUMSHOP is not an essay; the assay just adds some numbers to a stable guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• For those who are interested, I have initiated a deletion review here. Lepricavark (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

In the DRV, Jweiss11 objected to "personal attacks and assertions of complete falsehood against ", but a large part of us having to spend time in ANI is because he charged someone of "intellectual dishonesty", beginning in this case with his opposed CFDS nomination: "The issue here is that I've run into a smug and intellectually dishonest wikicrat who values who own pride over other people's time." I haven't seen an apology or retraction. He threw around intellectual dishonesty and neuroses liberally over a one-month period at another discussion that began in late December 2017, where he expressed some views that had little support among almost 10 participants, myself included. Jweiss11 is otherwise one of our most productive editors, and these are the only two incidents I am aware of where he has gotten uncomfortably heated. At a minimum, I hope he curbs his use of "intellectually dishonest" and the like moving forward.—Bagumba (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I tried to talk them into retracting and apologizing, but the latest advice is to steer well clear for now. ~ GB fan 11:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, he was banned from her talk page, but there's nothing preventing an apology here to the community.—Bagumba (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I have given this some more thought. I think that the substantive discussion above was closed way too soon and far too equivocally. This was a classic WP:BOOMERANG complaint. As I noted above and it should not have been closed without hearing my substantive response. It should esp not have been closed so soon, so equivocally with no action.

This is not just a matter of Jweiss11's allegation of initial name-calling ("smug and intellectually dishonest wikicrat" etc). It is his persistent and repeated failure to discuss disagreements civil and assume good faith from the very outset, a cycle which was repeated multiple times even unto his ANI complaint and his notification of it on my talk page ... accompanied along the way by football-field chants of "slam dunk" which have no place in consensus-forming discussion among editors of an encyclopedia.

No admin should be treated like this. No woman editor should be subjected to such vicious abuse and bullying because she does not submit to the demands of a male editor who has clearly expressed an entitlement to her time and entitlement to her compliance to his will ... and an entitlement entitlement to abuse and insult.

This whole pattern needs to be addressed properly, and not just the JWeiss11's first attack at WP:CFDS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism and "todd howard"

I'm not sure if this is the right place to say this but—has anyone else noticed a spike in vandalism involving "todd howard" or something sounding similar? Accounts use that name (1 2), vandalism uses this (1 2 3 these are just a few examples). Why is this happening? The IP edits look like they're coming from different places, so it doesn't seem like just one person is doing it. The Todd Howard that the vandalism is about is probably Todd Howard (video game designer). Anyone know what can be done? SemiHypercube (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: An influx of idiots. We are blocking the trolls and protecting articles. --NeilN 23:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Ah. A vandalism raid against Misplaced Pages. SemiHypercube (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube:,@NeilN:. Just to give some more context: This was discussed quite a bit at WP:RPP, you can see it here. This vandalism is based off a popular Tumblr post which leaked over to Twitter that specifically mentioned today being the day protection of his page expired. Many editors sought to protect the page before this all happened, but per Misplaced Pages bureaucracy it was declined. Sorry to vent here, but I think this is a textbook example of how WP:PP needs to re-evaluate its policy against "pre-emptive protection" when there is a demonstrated, organized interest in vandalism. I am cleaning up Todd Howard from totally unrelated pages. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The target page was protected, what, 24 hours ago? This is a good example of why we don't preemptively protect: it means nothing. The actual page was quickly protected and then the overflow went elsewhere. It's not like sysops were about to protect every page with "todd" or "howard" in the name. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

That's because an editor chose to be proactive, even then it required increased protection and editors time to fight that vandalism that could be spent combating other vandalism that is slipping through. I'm not saying everything should be preemptively protected, but pages that we can see a demonstrated outside campaign to vandalize. Again sorry, I am venting a little how much time is wasted fighting vandalism that can be easily prevented. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

scratches his head Not sure what you are expecting though. The main page was kept semi-protected when it was clear it would be vandalized, as it was already occurring on the talk page. Which, and how many, and at what volume, other pages might be targeted from that point on is not something we could easily guess before hand. I'd like to believe blocks and semi-protections have been quite responsive through this. -- ferret (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Should we make a temporary edit filter that tags and maybe warns editors if they try to add "Todd Coward" to any article? Some of the places that they're being added are VERY random and unexpected. I recently just reverted vandalism related to this in Weasel (disambiguation) and Chris Coward. This might be more effective than locking a bunch of pages. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 03:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Weasel related article vandalism is targeting me. :) I don't know edit filters myself, but I'd suggest a temporary filter for "Todd Coward" and "Todd Howard" (In general) for a while. Perhaps "Godd Howard" as well, though I haven't seen that one much. -- ferret (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't being clear above, ferret. I didn't mean guessing the outside/random pages that would be subject to the vandalism; I meant the pages that are expressly being targeted by the online campaigns, i.e. Todd Howard (video game designer). This has happened before and the response is always something like "wait until the vandalism actually happens." Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 03:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, and unless I'm not seeing something, the semiprotection at the Todd Howard article never lapsed, although a preemptive extension was declined once or twice at RFPP. I think some media reported that the vandals pounced as soon as the protection lapsed, but all the damage was from autoconfirmed accounts, which is slightly trickier to anticipate and defend against. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

That is correct. I had to upgrade the semi to an ECP which is rare. --NeilN 05:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Many pages are being linked to the disambiguation page Todd Howard. Any article namespace links to that page should be checked for vandalism - I've reverted as much of it as I could find. ʬʬ (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• And Special:Contributions/Potatopotatopotato666. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• the sickness spreads and here laughes hysterically, then sobs--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Revdel'd. The first one is particularly bad. The second was more cartoonish but I'd rather play it safe. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Like shootin' fish in a barrel-- Special:Contributions/KaptainAndy.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Reviewdekhlo8822

• Reviewdekhlo8822 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I blocked this user for spamming, but someone with bottomless reserves of good faith might feel they can convert them into a productive user - if so, feel free to unblock. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I have plenty of good faith, but I will not unblock an editor who added a source called "Guru Randhawa (Punjabi Singer) Height, Weight, Age, Family, Biography, Songs, Wiki", Guy.That just does not come across as a reliable source to me. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Me neither, my friend, but it could just be a clueless newbie in need of patient help. Very, very patient. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

In the rename request, we learn they have the same name as the spam link they added. Yes, we all make mistakes, but I think they need to stay blocked till they know not to repeat this one--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

User not participating in discussion; Personal attacks

MusicalGenius2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly not here to edit constructively at the encyclopedia. At the Kelly Rowland article, I removed sources in the "Discography" section, as they were unnecessary — an annonymous editor 2606:A000:4249:CA00:51E5:A7BE:48B7:F0DE reverting them, stating: These sources are supposed to show that the albums are official albums. When reverted, again, MusicGenius2 appeared, and stating (via-edit summary): es but now we are making it so the albums MUST be sourced with an iTunes or Amazon link so we can tell if it is real or fake. As an editor of music-related articles, I am unaware of any discussions of doing this, and even posted a question on their talk page (here: ) about the discussion, in the hopes of maybe being linked to it. Instead of responding, the user ignored me and made , with the summary: fuck you cunt and instead of discussing it, they reverted the edits. Clearly, this should not be acceptable behaviour on this encyclopedia, and is against civility policies here. livelikemusic talk! 12:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

MusicalGenius2 has been adding promotional falsehoods about Kelly Rowland, along with IPs in the range Special:Contributions/2606:A000:4249:CA00:0:0:0:0/52. I think we need a rangeblock and an indefinite block for the username. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Another involved IP is Special:Contributions/174.99.91.53. FYI. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I left MG2 a note about how iTunes and Amazon are more promotional than RS.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This is really moronic

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

Jayron32 has just vandalised 298, changing the year to "12" and "29". 2A00:23C0:7C00:B401:BCC2:57B:569A:B938 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism; Jayron just didn't revert far enough back to get rid of all the vandalism. I've reverted the remaining vandalism. Deor (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

And you need to inform the person this report is about on their talk page. Looks like a simple mistake on their part. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Checking the history, Deor reverted to 21:35, 10 November 2017, which is 2,232 bytes. Did he not notice that the version Jayron reverted was also 2,232 bytes, i.e. Jayron deliberately added the vandalism back? 81.157.151.199 (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add Favonian to this report. There are numerous cases where Favonian has repeatedly removed correct information from articles and replaced it with incorrect information which he then locks in. Two examples of his editing:

Hemen Majumdar (22 August 2015):

• He edit wars the incorrect infobox field parameter "Philosoper" in, to replace the correct "Painting".
• He edit wars the false birthplace Bongaigaon in, to replace the correct Kishoregani. Bongaigaon isn't even in the right country!
• He edit wars the false year of birth "1871" into the persondata, leaving the correct year 1894 in the infobox.
• One minute later he locks the page.

Old style leap year starting on Tuesday (28 April 2018)

After Favonian's edit the article shows a calendar for a leap year in which February only has 28 days. 86.131.12.59 (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:BE08:2100:4808:DA28:71F3:216A (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.112.24 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.211.250 (talk)

User:Huw Nathan

I have been trying to contact this editor for six weeks or so, but they ignore all messages. Please see User talk:Huw Nathan#Ways to improve List of Middlesex cricket captains. They regularly add unverified material to articles and I was contacting them about creating an article with no clear references, as part of my work on New Page Patrol. I have directed them to WP:V, WP:BURDEN and WP:Communication is required as well as pointing out that communication is a matter of policy per WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE but the editor just ignores all the messages. Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

As regards the List of Middlesex cricket captains, this was clearly referenced by the first of the external links provided by the creator. The titling of the section "External links" rather than "References" is hardly a reason to bombard the creator with messages and then bring this to ANI. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It is the overall concerns - refusal to colloborate/communicate, adding unsourced content to article and creating unsourced articles - that led me to start a discussion here. I wouldn't say asking someone questions over time is bombarding them, and I asked specifically if that was their source (if they'd replied yes, I'd have just clarified the heading myself, as I have done on other occasions). Unfortunately, they wouldn't answer whether that was their source. Boleyn (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

But why did you need to ask if that was their source? All you have to do is to follow the link and you can see for yourself that it was. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It's what we do on Misplaced Pages - we discuss things, check things, if things aren't clear to us. Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC}

User Libracarol and edit to Toronto van attack

Hello - I draw your attention to the edit comments of this edit related to the Toronto van attack, where user Libracarol objected terribly strongly to having his/her edit undone. I don't know whether or not the edit comment can be hidden in some way. Can somebody in authority please deal with this person? Thanks in advance, PKT(alk) 19:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Diff: . I've reverted again, we'll see how long that lasts. ansh666 20:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ordinary personal attacks are not covered by WP:CRD. However, the user should probably be warned against incivility. AlexEng 20:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Has not edited since opining on article talk page about 20 hours ago.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Mr.TinjuRaj - IDHT SPA

I've never brought somebody to ANI before, but as the saying goes, there's a first time for everything. Mr.TinjuRaj has a history fraught with warnings, e.g. , in December 2017. This month, the user has been adding what utcursch refers to as "castecruft", to the article Panicker. Mr.TinjuRaj has been repeatedly reverting several editors, and has violated 3RR in the process (there is a seperate EWN thread). However, the issue is more wide than a simple 3RR violation. The standard block that I anticipate will result means that there is no immediate risk of disruption, we should instead assess the long term picture.

IDHT

The user has been repeatedly reverting other editors without addressing their concerns. Look at the talk page - Talk:Panicker#Misuse of the article, and they just provide some quasi-english reference to prove that their edits were factually accurate - completely ignoring the concerns actually raised by the editors.

CIR

In fairness on the above point, the took away from the talk page WTAF. So they create a vast number of "articles" - single sentence sub-stubs that neither demonstrate any kind of notability nor are coherent English (some did vaguely make some form of claim of notability, however). They then proceed to continue their overarching purpose of adding a load of castes to the Panicker article, while still, returning to IDHT, not grasping the central point made by 2 other editors. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: You are required to notify anyone you're reporting here. I've done for you. I've given Mr.TinjuRaj a caste warning and agree he needs to be blocked if he won't communicate and change his editing. --NeilN 20:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I know and indeed I did, here, immediately after I posted this. It just got buried in the avalanche of speedies resulting from the beginning of this section. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Avalanche is right. --NeilN 20:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The user also systematically removes the speedy tag from the articles they create (something that increases the avalanche). I've given them a final warning. Bishonen | talk 20:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC).

• I've blocked indef. This user is not contributing anything to the project but disruption, which is something we can't work with if they are unable or unwilling to communicate. Swarm ♠ 20:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse block - Edit warring, adding a ton of crap to various talkpages, Cluelessness such as here, This editor would've been blocked sooner or later - No amount of rope would've helped them. –Davey2010 21:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• endorse indef block amazing.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yeah, I agree with the block too. Thank you for reporting, Bellezzasolo. Bishonen | talk 08:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC).
• Sound block. Let's see if the user appeals and/or comes up with any plausible rationale for unblocking. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Persistent promotional edits to BLPs

• Gillian Sorensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Juliet Sorensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Devorahanna (talk · contribs)
• 68.197.73.244 (talk · contribs)

After final warning, continuing to create a spammy intro to the Gillian Sorensen bio, ; ; ; ; ; and removing sourced negative content from Juliet Sorensen ; . This is a reasonably experienced editor who probably knows better. COI or paid contributor. There may also be longstanding copyright violation issues at the Gillian article, so a look at that would be appreciated. User block or page protection? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

All I am attempting to do is update the information regarding Gillian Sorensen. She no longer works for the U.N., as the opening sentence now reads. I am not sure how to proceed, since each time I make edits and changes, in order to create a more accurate Misplaced Pages site, the edits are rejected. There is nothing "spammy" here, but rather this is an honest attempt to improve and update the Gillian Sorensen entry. - devorahanna

• Devorahanna, there is nothing remotely acceptable about an article lede like this, which by my count you've posted five times today:

Gillian Sorensen has had a long career working for the United Nations, most prominently as Assistant Secretary-General for External Relations on appointment by Kofi Annan. An experienced public speaker and compelling advocate, she has addressed audiences as diverse as Rotary International (with an audience of 22,000); West Point Military Academy; and the United States Air Force Academy; university students; journalists, and leaders of civil society. She works with groups committed to peace, justice, development, refugees, and human rights and has recently addressed a National Model United Nations (NMUN) with students from over 130 countries.

In recent years she has made over 1000 public appearances. She currently serves as a Member of the Board of the International Rescue Committee and as a Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

• You've edited biographies here before, and know how to write. This is promotional, and only now have you chosen to respond. Divulgence of WP:COI and paid contributions is a requirement, not an option. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• By the way, I haven't addressed willfully misleading edit summaries . 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• comment I have boldly fully protected both pages to enhance the discussion. Any admin may unprotect at will.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've unprotected, Dlohcierekim. (It doesn't seem to be the first time you and I have disagreed about fullprotecting when one of the opposing parties is editing disruptively.) I've also warned Devorahanna on their page that they must respond to the COI inquiry before editing the articles further, and must in any case stop editing promotionally. Bishonen | talk 08:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC).

SO I saw. Well, the idea was to encourage her to engage in meaningful discussion. Didn't work. Discussion, sadly, does not seem to be her strong suit. I hope you got her attention.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, she does not seem to understand that part about promotional editing.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for your attention to this, and I can appreciate the rationale behind each of your actions. Perhaps more contributors will watchlist the articles now. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: You are welcome. Feel free to ping me if I'm around when the problem resumes.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Dana Loesch edit war article under DS

• User:ViriiK
• User:DrFleischman
• User:Mikist4
• User:Snooganssnoogans

Edit war taking place at this article. Admin intervention necessary. DrFleischman and Snooganassnoogans are restoring contested BLP material. All editors have been notified re: DS sanctions. – Lionel 02:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

For edit warring see WP:ANEW. Note also this issue is under discussion at WP:BLPN#Dana_Loesch. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I thought DS violations were handled here. I'll go to ANEW.– Lionel 02:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Fully protected article for two days. And Lionelt, you need to ease back a bit. Asking for discretionary sanctions to be levied because contested BLP material is being restored is overkill in this case. --NeilN 02:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for protection. About DS, I don't know if I agree with you. Even after I posted this report, K.e.coffman and James J Lamden joined the brawl. That's 6 editors. DrFleischman and ViriiK are both at 2RR at the article. ARBAPDS says "Limit of one revert in 24 hours." A quick glance at Snooganssnoogans' contribs appears to show they are no stranger to disruptive behavior. If editors are discouraged from reporting this kind of behavior at post 1932 articles then why do we even have DS?– Lionel 03:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt: I mentioned this at ANEW but no admin has indicated that article is under AP discretionary sanctions let alone placed any editing restrictions on that article. Editing restrictions must be explicitly announced and logged. I have no idea where you're getting ARBAPDS saying 1RR. --NeilN 03:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:Really? In the middle of the edit war, DrFleischman posted two Discretionary Sanctions notices on the talk pages of the editors opposing him and . That's why I thought the article is under DS. So he posted those DS notices even though the article was not under DS? I'm really confused now.– Lionel 03:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Read the DS notice: it says "Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks (emphasis added)." It doesn't say all articles under the topic automatically are subject to edit restrictions. An admin first has to impose and log any restrictions on a specific article. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt: Okay, I'll try to explain. All post-1932 AP articles are under discretionary sanctions. Taken by itself, DS simply means "edit carefully". DS also gives individual admins the power to enact specific editing restrictions on specific articles. These restrictions are enacted by the admin, not Arbcom, and must be listed at the article and logged. There are no editing restrictions across all AP articles. ARBAPDS does not automatically set editing restrictions. --NeilN 03:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I got it now. Incidentally the DS notice says "all pages related to post-1932 politics" but it does not say "Editing restrictions must be explicitly announced and logged" and just between you and me, Neil, I suspect that this notice is being used to gain leverage over unsuspecting editors in content disputes. But I'm not naming any names.– Lionel 04:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt: I hear you on the wording. Coincidentally, I and other editors are working on addressing this. --NeilN 04:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt:I'm not entirely clear what the issue is. These are not called notices but alerts, and I don't see why they would have to say that individual restrictions placed on specific articles need to be announced and logged. An editor once notified can be sanctioned for things other than breaking individual restrictions, as those only exist on some of the article covered by DS. Also, as you did name someone, saying that you aren't naming names isn't helpful and is not the same as "I'm not thinking of anyone in particular" Doug Weller talk 12:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Elirbosley

Elirbosley recently replaced all of the images on the Girl article with inappropriate photos. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I just checked their edit history, and it turns out that they have done the same to the Shower article. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Reverted Girl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Shower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Does this warrant a warning or block? After viewing their talk page, I saw that they have previously been warned for similar edits. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)DangleSnipeCelly1

I have given them a Level 4im image vandalism warning, based on these and previous incidents. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)DangleSnipeCelly1

Indeffed. --NeilN 05:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

(drama board stalker) While I fully endorse this block based on the edits to Girl, I’m not so sure how the edit to Shower was as disruptive as the ones to Girl. Sure, the new image didn’t really improve the article, but I don’t think that it significantly harmed it either. Sure, some people could say that the other image was obscene, risqué or pornographic, but, after all, it was factually accurate, and Misplaced Pages is not censored (or at least it’s not supposed to be). Again, I don’t object to the block as the replacement of the images on Girl crossed the line IMHO. 66.31.81.200 (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism at Blanchard's transsexualism typology

The article Blanchard's transsexualism typology has been repeatedly vandalized by Landfill baby, as visible here, here, here, and most recently here. I realize that I could have reported this at WP:AIV, but I am making a note of it here as I'd like to ask that the edit summary used in the last of the difs I've provided be removed as a form of pure disruption. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC) The edits here and here have additional outrageous edit summaries that need to go. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours and some edit summaries revdelled. No objection if another admin wants to indef. --NeilN 05:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• IMO, 72 hours was too lenient. Indeffed, no need to waste more time on this 42 edit account. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• It will always be a magnet for this. More admins should watchlist it. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing

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

Per this Twitter post by Marco Arment which contains an e-mail pitching "Misplaced Pages Consultant" services from a person named "Craig S," last name redacted, at least the following articles were substantially contributed to by a paid editor: NTENT, Digital Science, Urban Produce, LLC, Carlisle Homes. None of the pages appear to have paid editing disclosures. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, checking the Twitter comments, I see that shortly after (and perhaps because of) your post here, an arbitrator asked mr Arment to forward the e-mail with full headers to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, and he complied, so I guess the affair is more or less under control. Thank you for reporting, and for adding COI tags to the articles. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC).

P.S. I've now PRODded Carlisle Homes and Urban Produce, LLC, not that I expect it to stick, if the creator is watching. But there's always AfD as the next step. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC).

Urban Produce opened their doors in Irvine, California where they currently grow USDA certified organic microgreens, wheatgrass and a variety of specialty leafy greens and herbs in their CEA (Controlled Environmental Agriculture) vertical farm using their patented High Density Vertical Growing System (HDVGS).

Eww. No. God no. Burn it with fire G11. Obvious advertisement is obvious. GMG 21:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Endorse G11's, won't delete 'cause someone should come to them fresh, à nouveau .--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

91st Scripps National Spelling Bee

IP editor 38.102.61.227 (talk · contribs) is attempting to an unsourced list of hundreds of the children who have qualified for the US National Spelling Bee. In addition to just being a wall of text, these are living persons being discussed without citation, and well against our norms for discussing competitions like this. I've reverted them twice and would like some assistance. (Also I miss ANI, I haven't been dragged here in years, what happened to me!?!?) --Milowent • 18:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Semied for BLP vios. Courcelles (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've reverted the page back again. Using the previous years of the spelling bee as a guide, all that is needed is to say something like "There were X number of children that participated." Listing them all is insane to be honest and yes agreed with the Semi. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I was IP 38.102.61.227 and I didn't know how to use sources at the time, but when the protection expires, I will put it back, but this time with the proper sources. Also, I didn't discuss them, I listed them. -Erfson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erfson (talk • contribs) 20:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• There is no amount of sources that would make including this list okay. Zchrykng (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Probably only the actual winner would merit a mention. We strive for thoroughness, but we also need to remember we are an encyclopedia, and that some sort of notability must guide that thoroughness.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

FrankCesco26, umpteenth wave of disruptive POV edits

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

User:FrankCesco26 has a history of blocks for repeated edit-warring and POV-pushing in articles related to religion. In the last hours he is nearing violation of 3RR in Religion in the Czech Republic and has made extensive, unwarranted removals in Religion in Russia based merely on the fact that he doesn't like that the best sources available say something different than what he personally thinks or reads around the Internet. Recently, he also engaged in an umpteenth case of WP:PA against me, calling me a "problematic user", while consensus in that discussion went in the opposite direction of what he wanted.

I ask a decisive solution against this user.--Wddan (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

1. You have a block log too. 2. Neither of you went to the talk page, you just yelled at each other in edit summaries. 3. This is a content dispute and will be closed with no action. Go talk about it on the talk page and get consensus. --Tarage (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I have a block log because I unfortunately found myself engaged in editing the same articles that FrankCesco26 usually edits. There already is a history of discussions and consensus about these topics in the respective talk pages.

This is not a content dispute, but a complain about the behaviour of user FrankCesco26.--Wddan (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You are both not using the talk page. Let me be more clear. USE THE TALK PAGE. --Tarage (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I repeat that there is an extensive history of discussions about these topics and a general consensus about what and how data should be shown. FrankCesco26 is not the type of user who respects consensus. He has a LONG history of disruptive edit warring in this type of articles. I suggest to see this first case and this second one.--Wddan (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Users who in the past crossed their ways with FrankCesco26 could have something to say about the behaviour of the user: Boing! said Zebedee, Iryna Harpy.--Wddan (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Religion_in_the_Czech_Republic Last talk page edit was in 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Religion_in_Russia Last talk page edit was in January. Neither have talk page comments from EITHER OF YOU for THIS ISSUE. Use. The. Talk. Page. --Tarage (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I am waiting the intervention of administrators. However, Tarage, this edit by FrankCesco26 (the edit of today) is glaring vandalism. He removed two sets of data (Ministry of Education and European Social Survey), and in the past he tried to wipe out Arena Atlas, which has been chosen as the best set of data by both reason and consensus. All the relevant discussions can be found here. There's nothing new. The only solution against vandalism is to revert it.--Wddan (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, you're waiting for the intervention of an administrator. USE THE TALK PAGE!!!! This is what it's there for. You are complaining about someone and doing the exact same thing, though in fact it's you who is violating WP:BRD. You edited, they reverted (very partially, not even the entire thing) with a reasonable sounding explanation, so you decided to start an edit war. Go use the talk pages.Canterbury Tail talk 22:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh and by go to the talk pages, we didn't mean go to the talk pages and accuse other editors of vandalism and edit warring (when you're the one edit warring.) Seriously if you can't learn to play well with others and assume good faith maybe it's just better if we block you now. I suggest you refactor those talk page comments to remove the accusations and be more civil to other editors. From where I'm standing it's looking like you're the editor with the issue here. Canterbury Tail talk 23:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion the removal of well-sourced content is a type of vandalism. I am an editor with a history of good contributions and frankly I am amazed at how I am being treated here and how the issue is being handled. I did not assume the good faith of user FrankCesco26 because I already had to do with him in the past, and what he tried to do in Talk:Religion in Italy, that is, manipulation of sources (see this case, in which I was not involved) was enough for me to lose any trust in the user. What I tried to do opening this case was actually to prevent any other exhausting edit war from happening.--Wddan (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

No, no, no. The removal of well-sourced content is only vandalism if it is done maliciously. If it is done as bold editing in a content dispute, it is usually undesirable but needs to be discussed, on talk pages, of all places. Yelling "Vandalism" to "win" a content dispute doesn't make it vandalism and doesn't win the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

You know what prevents edit warring? Not edit warring and using the talk page. USE THE TALK PAGE. --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel like we are talking to a wall. Yoshi24517 _{Very Busy} 05:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Pro Regnum Siciliæ

I have sent Pro Regnum Siciliæ several messages since February but they have ignored all. The messages were about repeatedly creating articles without clear sources, and other editors have also messaged them about adding unverified material to existing articles. This led to an ANI in March, which Pro Regnum Siciliæ did not participate in, and they were given a two-week ban. Unfortunately, Pro Regnum Siciliæ still ignores all messages, won't address the issues and continues to add unverified material to articles, post-block. Please see User talk:Pro Regnum Siciliæ especially User talk:Pro Regnum Siciliæ#Sources (again). I think the only way to get Pro Regnum Siciliæ's attention and for htem to address the issues is an indef block, which hopefully would make them communicate. Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Previous ANI thread. He has been conversant before as seen here last Summer but not since. Communication is required so if he doesn't respond within three days, I'd endorse blocking.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Shooting of Michael Brown

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

2600:100a:b025:f2c7:c0fd:75a1:6465:4e9d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Shooting of Michael Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Multiple re-reverts including after multiple user talk warnings. User refuses to respect long-standing consensus as to inclusion of the race of the officer, while falsely claiming that most sources support the word "thug" with reference to Brown. I'm requesting a block and, as they have not shown any desire to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, I would prefer an indefinite one. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• You're right, Mandruss, I fat-fingered the protection length, but I did mean to protect it for the duration of the block given how trivial IPv6 blocks are to evade. Courcelles (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Ujishadow and copyright violations

Hi all,

I've recently been brought to the attention of Ujishadow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while reviewing a permission ticket on File:Shinji Okazaki BFA 2016.jpg (now deleted). After looking through their upload history, they appear to have uploaded a number of files with no evidence of permission, and the ticket for that one does not show (IMO) they represent the organisation they claim to while uploading files. I think a block to prevent further copyright infringements - as most of their history has been deleted, I'm bringing this here rather than CCI, as I don't think there's sufficient history left to investigate. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Support indef block - Classic IDHT. They were warned in May 2017 by Ad Orientem at User talk:Ujishadow#Warning: Disruptive Editing. They haven't changed their ways. Net negative to the project. If they want editing privileges back, let them go through the unblock process, acknowledge their errors, and actually engage with the community. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

A look at their contrib log has satisfied me that this is not a WP:NOTHERE editor. And I very rarely start off with an indef block otherwise. That said I do agree we have a problem and it needs to be addressed. Hopefully Ujishadow will join the conversation here and let us know that they understand the serious nature of WP:COPYRIGHT and will not continue to upload non-free files. Failing which, they will be blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I think they've been warned more than enough and that it would not be unreasonable to block now and not unblock till they agree to desist from uploading files. As they cannot distinguish what files they must not upload, they should desist entirely. One can have a long and productive Wiki-career w/o uploading files.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Your delete on those pictures are unreasonable. They are all the pictures Titan Sports sent to me, only except the one of Shinji Okazaki. I have sent the email for approval to permission email address but you never give me reply. Only except the one I received yesterday regarding the shinji file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 05:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Sweetpear2

• Sweetpear2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sweet Pear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tom Devine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has had two accounts over a four year period, and has only ever edited the article on Tom Devine. I deleted that article due to long-standing copyright infringement, a new stub was created, and Sweetpear2 immediately started re-adding promotional material copy-pasted form the same source, leading to further revision deletions. I have blocked indef per WP:C, WP:PROMO and in the end also WP:NOTHERE. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Snoopydaniels

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

I have blocked this user per WP:NOTHERE (also possibly WP:RGW). First edit 2010-08-12 18:43, 187 edits total, 23 pages. Early edits include IP to registered account and again promoting the idea that irreducible complexity is a scientific concept (it really isn't). Next mainspace edits were all to Blaire White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), edit-warring to restore misgendering, and agitation for the restoration of the article on creationist Günter Bechly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This user seems to be here solely to fight for Truth™ against all comers. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

spam user NamiNami666

please check on this user NamiNami666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) he likes to spam on all of The Face reality tv. pages both in English and Thai. thank you--Kritkritkrit (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

user Kritkritkrit

please check on this user Kritkritkrit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) His Contributions look like...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And he may is sockpuppets of Choccobkk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). thank you--NamiNami666 (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@NamiNami666: If you suspect they're using multiple accounts inappropriately, better file SPI case, that's better venue than here. Unless, if you mean something else. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@NamiNami666 and Kritkritkrit: Y'all's funny.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@NamiNami666: u are funny and really imagine about me as a sockpuppet, i think u have to stop to watching Thai soap opera. u personalities looks like a girl who like to imagine in Thai soap opera stories.--Kritkritkrit (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I never sad even if you laugh my action because I had done my right way (for me).--NamiNami666 (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Kritkritkrit is possibly a sock of Golf-ben10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Note that I said possibly, and not definitely. Check the SPI case. ClimaxApproaching (Contribs) (CSDs) 13:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan

Can I get a review of the lead change by IP's at Taiwan. Got some weasel words and grandioseness with reference spam.--Moxy (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam, Moxy is wrong. No weasel words have been used in the article. Everything is done in good faith and every single piece of information added in the article is backed up by reliable sourced references, please feel free to check the references. Moxy is engaging in unexplained mass deletions of information due to his personal dislike of the information, of which all are indisputably sourced and referenced. Thank you very much! 118.106.145.105 (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

No weasel words? I would start with "wealthy and properous" (including the mis-spelling). We avoid such adjectives in Misplaced Pages. And i'm sorry, but "selective breeding and subsequent development of the intellectual cerebral abilities of their human talent" sounds just plain sick to me. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I second this. The IP is not only adding a bunch of weasel worlds, but also using some less than desirable references (Mirror, Sun) to add to the article. I would expect that an article about a country should have better references. More importantly, the IP is constantly reverting and not attempting to discuss at all.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Oshwah has protected the page. However, I am not sure why Denisarona did this edit. This edit essentially restores the entire content with weasel words and reference spam. Was this edit a mistake?--DreamLinker (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Must be a mistake....informed locking admin.--Moxy (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I've appealed to @Oshwah: on IRC, to no avail. The current full-protected version is not remotely acceptable; it's POV pushing (almost vandalism) from a single IP editor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah is off line. Would be happy to revert to clean version.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Check my work.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, though even a blank page would have been better than Taiwan invested heavily in their infrastructure as well as in the selective breeding and subsequent development of the intellectual cerebral abilities of their human talent, encouraging the attainment of high levels of university and graduate school level doctoral education, as well as fostering and retaining their superior IQ geniuses to help further develop and improve Taiwan. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Yup. And the IP editor argued there were no weasel words. HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to Dlohcierekim, Taiwan now looks more like an encyclopedia article and less like a glossy 16 page magazine insert produced by a joint venture between a Taipei tourist agency, the Harvard Lampoon and 4Chan. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Check my work, further revert.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

An IP hopper has been trying to force much of this superior IQ geniuses text into the opening paragraph of Four Asian Tigers for a long time (e.g. Jun 2017, Feb 2018, Apr 2018), ignoring discussion on the talk page. Kanguole 10:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Help fixing a mistake I made

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

I moved Pontiac to Pontiac (automobile brand) because I didn't remember that I had proposed that move once before a couple of years ago and it didn't get consensus. Now I need to move it back but I can't. So if an admin would please help me move the automobile back to its original title I would appreciate that. Thanks.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)  Done--Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you forgot the talkpage, though. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

LOL No the stupid move button forgot the talk page.  Done again.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again!·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Phryne Muybridge

Phryne Muybridge has been editing since 2017. I left them a message about an unreferenced article they had created, thanking them for their work and asking if they could please add their source. They responded by deleting my message and a message from another editor inviting them to the Teahouse, here replacing our words with: 'Please leave all unwanted comments below'. This doesn't demonstrate the collaborative approach I was hoping for, but they are still quite new. As you can see at User talk:Phryne Muybridge, I messaged explaining why communicating is important and asking what the sources were for two of their creations. I have sent five messages, with no response and the issues haven't been addressed. They also have continued to add unverified material to existing articles, such as . This person is relatively new and I don't think English is their first langauge; I am hoping thwey will communicate here and that we can help solve this together. Boleyn (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

François Robere DS vilolations

Over at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland there are DS in place, and (in my opinion) User:François Robere is now in breach them ], ].Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

An editor made a highly contentious suggestion backed by some OR analysis of Greek etymology , aimed at pushing an obviously FRINGE position . I opposed it, and made two comments on its factual inaccuracy and circumstances . Others have done the same . The OP chose to single me out for no apparent reason, as he has done several times before. This request is unfounded and should be dully rejected. François Robere (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: If you're talking about the civility restriction then I don't think François Robere's comments rise to the level of breaking it. --NeilN 14:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards