Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:22, 16 June 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)

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Editor changing lead on biota articles against consensus + massive IDHT

• Couiros22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Couiros22: has been editing a large number of articles about biota (mainly fish so far), making changes to the lead against consensus, MOS guidance and the Fish Project advice. Typically, if the article title is the scientific name, they change the first sentence from starting with the article title to the common name (not WP:COMMONNAME) and sometimes to an arbitrary choice amongst a number of common names for the species or even ambiguous names. I became aware of this when they edited an article on my watchlist.

A sample of some of his recent changes: there are way too many to list them all here, but a quick check of their contributions will find plenty more if you want to look.

The editor was first called to task for this behaviour here followed by considerable back and forth involving a number of editors including myself. The editor has continued to make their changes unabated, despite advice and several warnings that action may be taken if they do not cease and most recently. The editor has made further edits since the last warning, as I write this the first three diffs above were made after the last warning. The editor is simply not listening.

The editor does appear to do some useful work on article categories, but I have not checked whether they suffer from the same idiosyncratic approach as that used toward the article leads. I am not sure what appropriate administrative action should be taken here, I am leaning towards a short block to get their attention followed by a topic ban on biota articles, broadly construed, after the block expires or is successfully appealed.

- Nick Thorne 15:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a problem of Couiros22 causing major problems or vandalism. The edits the editor is making are pretty trivial, and the errors that he is creating are also relatively minor formatting errors. The main problem is Couiros22 is exhibiting clear WP:IDHT behavior after several different people have persistently and politely pointed out the problems with his edits, and he has just continued onward with the same behavior. This type of editing is not compatible with a collaborative editing environment, and signals that Couiros22 does not care whether people have to go along behind him to correct the errors. I support a removal of editing privileges from Couiros22 for the time being. I am on the fence about whether or not he can persuasively convince the community that his manner of editing against consensus can improve in the future. Neil916 (Talk) 16:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been watching this situation develop for some time – I happen to have the user's talk-page on my watchlist. Looking through that page, I see two areas where the editor has come into disagreement with others: the present kerfuffle over fish names, and an earlier one over the categorisation of birds, where two pillars of the birds wikiproject separately took issue with what Couiros had been doing. In both cases there's a fairly alarming reluctance to listen to what others are saying. I don't see that there's been any conflict over, say, articles on French geography, so perhaps this can be resolved without anyone getting blocked. I suggest the same topic ban on all biota articles and categories, broadly construed, that Nick Thorne has put forward above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I've just spent about two hours replacing the article title at the beginning of the opening sentence of a large number of fish articles edited by Couiros22 (more to come, but I do have to sleep sometime). I noticed a large number of category changes as I was working. I did not investigate the appropriateness of those changes as that's a can of worms I'd prefer not to open, but given this reply when queried about a category change by another editor approximately one day after this AN/I thread was started I am not convinced that Couiros22 understands, or cares about, the collaborative nature of our work here. Seeing that reply, I asked who had made that determination here and received this which to me implies a disregard for other editors' opinions. - Nick Thorne 14:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Couiros22 simply does not engage properly in discussion, seeming to regard all comments, however polite, and however well grounded in existing policies, as a challenge to be resisted. Couiros22 needs to learn that editing here requires consensus and following established guidelines and policies. I support removing editing privileges for a time in the hope that this will lead to better behaviour. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• I'd be interested in other editors opinion on this edit. DexDor 15:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Since the editor continues to make no response to this ANI report I think it is time for a block to get their attention. Per his talk page, he notices that his approach is being criticized but he intends to make no changes whatsoever in what he is currently doing. On June 12 alone he has made dozens of category changes, with no evident support. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• That edit is obviously wrong and shows Couiros22 does not understand how categorization works. Fish of Australia (if they are not separated from Freshwater fish of Australia, and even then there are brackish water species) is a subset of Marine fauna of Australia, not the other way around.

I tend to steer clear of categories for the most part, because I am not sure I properly understand how they work on Misplaced Pages. However, fish of Australia cannot be a subset of marine fauna of Australia because not all fish are marine. Freshwater fish of Australia must logically be a sub-set of fish of Australia, so if fish of Australia was to be put in a higher level category then it would need to be something like fauna of Australia, without the "marine" qualifier. C22's re-categorization does not seem logical to me and I suspect it makes it harder for people to find what they're looking for, not easier, which surely is the point of categories. - Nick Thorne 02:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• The whole matter with the common fish names is that Couiros22 does not follow any logic. He picks certain common names at random and pushes those as the only validly accepted ones. It is becoming a mess and while fauna categorization and proper naming or documenting the various common names is useful, those tasks are now not done, "in favor of" wild and rogue edits that do not create a better encyclopedia. He seems deaf for objections, even when they are sourced and well-argumented and this example here above clearly shows he does not grasp the whole concept of categories. Tisquesusa (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been gradually working my way back through C22's contributions re-bolding and moving the article title to the beginning of the lead. To be fair, in a few cases, the articles' leads were either always the wrong way round or somebody else had made the change, either way since I'm there I am applying the MOS. In the overwhelming majority of cases these articles are stubs, so I suspect they do not get a lot of attention, but I'm adding them to my watchlist as I go. I'll be spending some time expanding articles about Australian freshwater fish (my area of interest and knowledge) once I've done, but obviously I can't re-write the entire fish area of the Wiki. I had considered just reverting C22's edits, but without spending a lot of time trying to understand how he has been changing the categorization, I did not feel that was a good ides, however, if others think he is making a complete mess of the categories, then I would support such an action. Meanwhile I will continue to try and undo the damage manually, but it will take a while to get through all the edits. - Nick Thorne 02:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've put some notes about C22's editing on my talk page (User_talk:DexDor#Couiros22) and would support action (e.g. block or topic ban). DexDor 20:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for block

@Couiros22: has continued their editing behaviour making over 85 edits today alone, even as this AN/I thread continues, changing categorization despite their approach being challenged. They steadfastly refuses to explain their changes, even when asked, not even using edit summaries. I have specifically asked them to explain their approach on their talk page, but they continues to answer with non sequiturs. See here here and here. I have left a final request for them to explain here, although I expect this to be handled in the same non-responsive way as before. I believe it is now time to act. C22 needs to stop making changes until a consensus has been established, it seems to me that the only way we can get them to listen is a block. - Nick Thorne 11:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

As expected, a non-responsive reply: here. - Nick Thorne 11:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I have made a brief comment on their talk page. Basically I can't see what they are doing wrong. Perhaps the communication style is poor, but I do see genuine attempts to explain their rationale. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

using Hibiscus as personal gallery

Not sure I'm reporting this in the right place, but wanted to bring it to admins' attention. Please see this history page. Tried several times to revert the edits, but the editor is adding pics too quickly for me to do so, and I keep getting edit conflicts. Eric 03:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Meh. I think it might have been better to address the editor in question before posting here. If the images are high quality and germane, it might be OK. I know I've seen a policy on this somewhere, but don't recall. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:NOTGALLERY apply? Dozens of images, all of Thai hibiscus, appears to be an undue concentration, without explanation of why this is necessary or constructive. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The additions seem excessive and indiscriminate. When I looked at some of their images, I noticed that they seem to have started out under another username, One World Thailand, and that the metadata lists PHOENIX_AGENCY in the author field. An example of both may be seen here. I've little experience with image metadata; the copyright holder is listed as TRISORN_TRIBOON, and the author field may be irrelevant. I left them notices about the multiple usernames. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Trisorn Triboon. I just wondering how many picture allow for gallery ? I also want to know if someone allow High Definition image to contributions for free usage and want to be part of create free knowledge would it not allow to have a group of people helping ?

I own advertising company and I believed I could help to support at lease high quality of images. If you have over 10000 images to use for each article how would you upload images as quick as you would ? One World Thailand are partner of our group so they allowed to have my images to help upload for contribution at lease if something happen to me such as car accident or sickness at lease I leave something for the world. not sure if varieties of Plant I put in gallery would be an issue ? if Wiki not allow to have that much I believed Wiki should have solution to have warning directly to author. One more reason I am trying to contribution as you can see Thailand only have around 1xx,xxx Articles while other country have more than millions. So I think with pictures I allowed to use would at lease give inspiration for someone to write more article for more knowledge for next generation. Sorry if part of my answer are not good English but I did my best trying to explain my point of view. and thank you for bring it up as issue at lease we can have better generation of wiki for new user to be part of it and use it the right way. so please let me know if too many of species not allow in gallery I would stop it right away. for other genus. Please also see Adenium and Plumeria gallery and Kindly give me explanation. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trisorn Triboon (talk • contribs) 09:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Dlohcierekim, BlackcurrantTea, and anonymous. In my experience, this kind of editing pattern does not come from someone interested in learning about the project and improving the encyclopedia. I just wanted to bring the behavior to others' attention. The system won't let me revert the additions, apparently because of the number of consecutive edits (56 on June 6, 62 on June 11). Eric 11:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

From what I am reading here, the user in question wishes to help, but needs some advice on how to do so in a manner that aligns with best practice. Icarosaurvus (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Would it help to create some stubs about the species (most are redlinks) and diffuse some images there? They are indeed high-quality and it is a pity we do not have a use for them.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Pretty BITEY, I'd say, and this certainly never belonged at ANI. Urgent! Encyclopedia under siege! Too many hibiscus images! EEng 16:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@EEng:https://en.wikipedia.org/Eucalyptus please kindly look at this page about difference plantae we are talking about

"This page is for discussion of urgent incidents, chronic, intractable behavioral problems, and too many hibiscus images." Natureium (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Trisorn Triboon: The trouble is, and correct me if I'm wrong, you would need to upload them under creative commons, GFDL, or public domain. You would in effect be giving away your rights to the images. If you are willing, commons would be willing to host the images. that's their mission-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckles, gang. As I said in my first post, I didn't know where I should sound the hibiscus alert, even after searching WP's superbly indexed guidance for the appropriate place. So if it was completely out of line to post here, someone wiser than I could have simply removed my post and told me where to go, so to speak. Re "bitey": This is an encyclopedia, not a personal image showcase, and I think anyone who came here to improve the encyclopedia and took a few minutes to learn how we do things would have refrained from adding 60-plus images to an article in a WP whose language he/she does not master, all with captions in Title Case reading "Colorful Hibiscus Flower". Eric 18:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

They might very easily have come here to improve the encyclopedia and not realized they need to take a few minutes to learn how we do things, and just gone ahead and done something they thought would be helpful. AFAICS you never even left them a talk-page message before coming here. EEng 18:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@EEng:Same as Koala eating Hibiscus it actually Eucalyptus not Hibuscus if you check type of leaf before you put title on image--Trisorn Triboon (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Eric: Humor aside, it could look spammy if one adds too many of one's own images, so I think it reasonable to discuss the matter. We do need to find a best, highest use. Certainly, if one does not mind giving away one's images, commons is the place to do it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Eric:I am wondering on talk page of Eric why he got so many of talked and IBAN ? and nobody answer me if today i give away high resolution of 100 species banana and 100 species of mango and 100 species of herbs and put in the list of banana cultivars article and in the list of mango cultivars article and the list of herb article just because i am lucky that i am business owner of advertising agency dont give conclusion that pictures in gallery i put in or i made would be personal gallery ! because[REDACTED] are free to improve anywhere anytime and especially anyone. so if someone find difference species or the same species i put in but can improve quality of image which better lighting, better color better mood better tone better resolution, etc. in the same species i did put in feel free to put it up for other people in the world to see and use for education or anything so kindly do so. but do not give conclusion what i put are my personal gallery because anyone can help to improve it but not delete all of it ! so let me know if i got this wrong so i can stop what i am contribute right away. Thank you.-- TrisornTriboon (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding the photo File:D85 1108 Sunset Through window after rain in Thailand photographed by Trisorn Triboon.jpg to sunset and adding File:D85 0751 Photographed by Trisorn Triboon 50.jpg to photography are representative of one aspect of the problem here. These two photos were added as the lead images for the two articles, but they are not appropriate: the sunset photo doesn't really exemplify what a sunset is, and the flower photo added to photography is only related to the topic in the sense that it is a photo. In a nutshell, Trisorn Triboon is here to highlight his photos in Misplaced Pages articles regardless of their appropriateness. @Trisorn Triboon: your photos are wonderful, but please be more selective in their use and make sure that they are used only where appropriate (perhaps by using the articles' talk pages to suggest new images and see what other say first). Peacock (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually IMO (unrelated to the specific case) seriously enforcing of WP:GALLERY is way overdue. We have quite a lot of galleries not compliant with the policy, and a lot of images which do not illustrate anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, we don't - I do some patrolling of articles tagged for this, of which there aren't all that many, and a good number are actually compliant. Place articles, especially in Asia, are often bad though. Of course views differ as to interpreting the policy. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Gallery Policy aside (I personally feel that particular one needs a bit of revisiting), I'd suggest that Trisorn Triboon may wish to take a trip to Wikimedia Commons; lest I am mistaken, Commons welcomes high-quality images of various sorts. From there, usage of the images for various articles could likely be proposed and discussed on the talk pages here; it's not as though many of our plant articles have as many images or as good quality images as would be preferable. (Notably, many seem to lack pictures of, say, the bark for trees, or various other diagnostic structures.) Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

All his images were already on Commons, uploaded by him. If you mean he should transfer his gallery there, then no - a) we shouldn't tell people what to do on Commons, and b) Commons galleries and "pages" are mostly unhelpful to users, the "pages" in particular being where users end up from a search, which is a major problem on Commons. I'd love to get the lot deleted. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDing by Admin User:Buckshot06

My recent interactions with User:Buckshot06 started here: User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 23#Tuy Hoa Air Base on 7 May when I questioned them over the deletion of Tuy Hoa Air Base and then later Nha Trang Air Base. Buckshot06 was "presumptively deleting" entire pages as part of the Bwmoll3 CCI. My questioning of Buckshots06's approach eventually led to this response: "I am acting in full conformity with that rule and I am tired of you attacking me for doing my job as an admin. I do not expect to be criticised again for acting in full confirmity with the rules that keep the site legal". I then opened the entire issue for discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 145#Potential deletion of USAF/RAF pages where I showed on 17 May that Buckshot06 was not in fact following CCI policy. Since opening that discussion Buckshot06 has been hounding me on various pages and issues.

Starting with User talk:Mztourist#South Korea in the Vietnam War on 13 May Buckshot06 became involved in a debate I was engaged in with an IP User (later registered as User:A bicyclette) regarding purported massacres by South Korean troops in the Vietnam War. Early in that discussion I stated "I find it strange that you as an Admin are siding with an anonymous IP which has made repeated POV changes, may well be a sock for a banned User and is unwilling to discuss the issues on the Talk page." Buckshot06 became involved in the debate, opening the issue of body count. They questioned the reliability of the AFD process and the competence of other Users with this comment "simply getting three or four other[REDACTED] editors with no specialist knowledge to agree is no particular evidence that the actions did not take place" and assumed without any evidence that I had a US military background and so was inherently biased, "Clearly from your U.S. military background you would, indeed, tend to suspect enemy writings." a claim which they subsequently covered up here: ]. Buckshot06 then moved and continued the discussion here: Talk:South Korea in the Vietnam War#Copied over from User talk:Mztourist.

Also on 13 May Buckshot06 began revising categories of various Vietnam War bases leading to this debate: User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 23#Military bases of the Vietnam War.

On 16 May User talk:Mztourist#Military articles being deleted by Buckshot Buckshot06 stated "Do you not see (a) that the reason I started keeping an eye on what you're doing currently..." I advised them that "keeping an eye on what you're doing = WPHOUND."

On 31 May I started this discussion:User talk:A bicyclette#Your recent changes which Buckshot06 joined discussing body count. I suggested that the correct procedure rather than edit warring claims on each page was to reach a consensus that could be applied to all Vietnam War pages, Buckshot06 ignored this. Buckshot06 incorrectly asserted that I had "defend U.S. official body count figures, en generale" and was "saying they should be left in the articles without even giving the other side's figures, which would be equally biased". The dispute then moved to edits to the body count page. I noted that A bicyclette was making changes without providing edit summaries and asked Buckshot06 why he wasn't enforcing this.

On 31 May I opened an edit warring complaint against A bicyclette here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368#User:A bicyclette reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Declined) regarding his changes to numerous Vietnam War battle pages to insert US claims" etc and Buckshot06 became involved in the discussion addressing underlying issues rather than the edit warring by A bicyclette.

Also on 31 May Buckshot06 posted this: User talk:Mztourist#Army War College Study on Military Professionalism, 1970 on my Talk Page to push their view on body count. I suggested that instead "why don't you look into this sudden surge of Vietnam War edits being made by User:A bicyclette and IP: 172.86.241.3 who both appeared out of nowhere 5-10 days ago or don't they concern you because you like their POV and they are causing issues for me?"

Also on 31 May Buckshot06 made various changes to the body count page here: to enforce his views on the unreliability of Vietnam war body counts. I added further WP:RS that were a counterpoint to this on 2 June: and then A bicyclette joined in making multiple changes to try to undermine my changes and support his view of a "Vietnamese Government" document which he claims represents the only truly reliable figures. Edit-warring followed and there were discussions on the Talk page: Talk:Body count#Last edits and Talk:Body count#Discussion of Body Count Sourcing. Buckshot06 being involved did not act impartially, not questioning A bicyclette's claims that a 1995 AP story which gave different figures was incorrect nor questioning the reliability of A bicyclette's "Vietnamese Government" document. Buckshot 06 did, thankfully, block the body count page from editing for 1 week, however as soon as that block expired yesterday A bicyclette has gone straight back to making his changes as I have noted here: Talk:Body count#Unbelievable.... Buckshot06 moved the discussion to Talk:Vietnam War casualties#Official SRV estimates stating that A bicyclette's "Vietnamese Government" document "This is probably the best source I've seen put forward from the Northern side for whole-war casualties" but finally acknowledged its deficiencies. I suggest a resolution of the entire issue here on 4 June: " I am asking you to adjudicate a final position on PAVN/VC casualties to go in the Vietnam War infobox, I suggest this should be the following range: 849,018 (with A bicyclette's ref when he provides it properly) - 1,489,000 (with Rummel ref). Please confirm and obtain confirmation of this from A bicyclette as he seems to still be contesting all other references other than his Vietnamese document" but Buckshot06 did nothing.

On 5 June due to the ongoing edit-warring I opened a 3RR here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive369#User:A bicyclette reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Warned user(s)) and Buckshot06 was asked by the Admin to contribute and they once again discussed the issue of body counts and my skepticism regarding Vietnamese sources. On 7 June both I and A bicyclette were warned but this did nothing really changed.

On 7 June, as suggested by the Admin I opened two discussions here: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC regarding US claims of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties on Vietnam War battle pages regarding the whole "claims/body count" issue and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties regarding the reliability of A bicyclette's "Vietnamese Government" document. I posted these on the edit-warring complaint, Talk:Vietnam War#North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties, Talk:Vietnam War casualties#North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties, both remain open and I would have assumed that until they are closed the edit-warring would have stopped.

Also on 7 June A bicyclette made this change , which I reverted here commenting "no explanation or justification given for revert, discuss on talk page rather than edits warring again", A bicyclette referted again here: . Buckshot06 made an intervening edit but did nothing to stop A bicyclette making these changes or enforce Talk page discussion. On 9 June I reverted A bicyclette again here: , Buckshot06 then reverted my change here: stating "2 to 1 consensus ; accurate; improves context". On 10 June I reverted Buckshot06 here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_allied_military_operations_of_the_Vietnam_War_(1966)&diff=next&oldid=845104222} stating "2:1 is not a consensus, take it to RFC". On 9 June Buckshot06 opened this discussion on the Talk page: Talk:List of allied military operations of the Vietnam War (1966)#Mid-2018 threatening me with Admin sanctions. I advised them that "As you should be well aware, I have raised this whole issue at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC regarding US claims of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties on Vietnam War battle pages and you should await the outcome of that RFC and ensure that A bicyclette stops making these changes until that RFC is finalized rather than threatening me with sanctions." Buckshot06 then proceeded to block me for 3 days.

I successfully appealed my block as discussed here: User talk:Mztourist#Block and here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Block and unblock of Mztourist.

I believe this all shows that Buckshot06 has clearly been hounding me and request appropriate action/sanctions to stop this and prevent any recurrence. kind regards Mztourist (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I note that you started a blatantly POV pushing "request for comment" at WT:MILHIST#RfC regarding US claims of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties on Vietnam War battle pages, and have followed up on the complaints about this by starting a RfC which also falsely presents a live dispute in the abstract at WT:MILHIST#RFC: How should Vietnam War casualty figures be presented?. That you are giving these as an example of good conduct on your part suggests a lack of reflection on the matter: this is poor conduct which indicates that Buckshot has valid concerns about your editing. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D you are the first to categorise my RFC as "blatantly POV". Several Users indicated that my RFC was poorly framed and I have attempted to correct that creating a new RFC in the form suggested, how does that "falsely presents a live dispute in the abstract"? I have been getting nowhere in my disputes with A bicyclette and Buckshot06 on US claims/sources/reports/body counts and so am seeking comments/consensus on this issue which I thought was the correct procedure. If not, please explain to me exactly what procedure I should be following there rather than casting dispersions on me here and distracting from my complaint regarding hounding. Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Lodging a SPI report about your opponent in this content dispute (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam) and then badgering the checkuser and closing admin when it was declined on the grounds that you saw the report as a way of ending the dispute is also poor practice. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D Amanda the Admin who declined the checkuser of A bicyclette said on 7 June "If after a few days no further evidence is provided, I'd recommend closure w/o action". I provided further evidence on 7 June and then again on 10 June but Bbb23 closed the entire SPI on 10 June while I was subject to Buckshot06's block. Once I was unblocked I raised the issue with Bbb23, I don't believe that I have badgered Bbb23, but if so I unreservedly apologise. I believe that I have legitimate grounds for the SPI because A bicyclette's edits follow a familiar pattern and POV to previous blocked Users. I am especially frustrated by the fact that I am receiving so much criticism from so many fronts for trying to follow proper policy and procedures while A bicyclette ignores all policies and procedures and attracts no criticism or sanctions whatsoever. Do the checkuser, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but if I'm right then I have been sorely wronged. Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't feel badgered.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to admit I would have done that Checkuser. There is certainly enough evidence (overlaps in editing, time of creation of account etc.) to do so IMO. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Body count is a mass of SYNTH and OR (some of which I've deleted). EEng 12:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge that this discussion is underway; I'm signaled my acceptance of the decision regarding the reversed block - clearly I acted too hastily regarding the body count issue in articles; Mztourist has repeatedly got in my way as I have attempted to continue the copyvio cleanup after Bwmoll3; I have grave concerns about Mztourist's POV on Vietnam matters, but I've also had to rollback some of A bicyclette's edits, and to advise him to lodge source complaints with WP:RSN. I believe that both Mztourist and A bicyclette are getting a little too worked up over the issue, and a cup of tea and pause for reflection might be in order. I do finally however note that I do not agree with some of Mztourist's characterisations of our interactions above. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"Repeatedly got in my way"? You were not following CCI policy as you repeatedly claimed. Mztourist (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: You should probably consider yourself involved with Mztourist from now on.--v/r - TP 17:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment: I am somehow surprised that Nick-D's first reaction to the complaint was to comb through Mztourist's entire edit history and try to find faults with them, even going as far as an entirely unrelated SPI, while displaying zero interest in in the very problem that has brought them here, i.e., HOUNDING. It will take some effort to convince me this is not an attempt to undermine the complainant's credibility. — kashmīrī  16:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Shevonsilva

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

User:Shevonsilva has been creating a lot of stubs with a lot of problems. A lot of time has been spent on their talk page by PamD, Vexations, Nick Moyes, Imaginatorium, and me. They have issues with things like sourcing information, mass creation of stubs with the same misspelling, bad titles, and using Misplaced Pages as the source for article creation. Despite a lot of patience, things have now devolved into personal attacks like:

• I never expect you as a big liar. You have no idea about the subject there You do not appreciate other, and, telling lies and discourage other. If you cann't understand the article it is fine. STOP LYING to other people. This is dis-graceful. You are attacking me personally. I am very unhappy about you, now. I hate liars.
• You like to involve in arguemnts with me and impress others while others are supporting me and suggesting me important things like bots and stuff. You only created two pages (according to your page), look like you got no idea how much effort we have to put to create pages
• and the ironic Your English is much like Gangster English.

I suggest they be banned from creating articles due to WP:CIR and strongly warned about civility. Natureium (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that I am on Kenya constituency stubs (actually, already for three days) and I am steadily improving them. No need to intervene in this area. Just in case.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This is about me. I will post the full discussion. There were personal attacks towards me and my work. I will post the full discussion. Creating stubs are something else.Shevonsilva (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

 Removed

Sorry for the whole mess. Shevonsilva (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Here are the full discussions:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Shevonsilva#Mass_additions
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Shevonsilva&diff=prev&oldid=845405728&diffmode=source

Anyway in reality, all are worring about the issues to improve the encyclopedia Shevonsilva (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Indeed, Shevonsilva has created more than 1000 stubs on subdivisions of Africa over approximately 6 weeks. Many of these have included lots of careless errors (each one mass-duplicated); the most recent couple of samples I looked at did not have any obvious errors. So I find it easy to assume good faith, but I cannot see how all this effort is improving Misplaced Pages. For many of the countries concerned, there is absolutely minimal information, and some sort of list of subdivisions (e.g. Departments of Gabon): putting this list in tabular form, adding information such as "Capital" or "Population" would obviously be an improvement. But instead what happens is a mass of microstubs, giving the same information in less convenient form. Worse, when there is an occasional division with a useful article there is no way of distinguishing it, since every division has a microstub link. A few other points:

• Shevonsilva does appear to be engaged in a bizarre "point scoring" exercise. When it is pointed out that many of his pages (for example from a previous mass-creation of "units" pages) have been converted to redirects, we get comments like "Re-directions are regarded as a creation."
• The history for the page M'Bagne Department is curious. (See User_talk:Shevonsilva#Mauritania_now). Originally there were eight extra paragraphs after the usual boilerplate, the first duplicating the boilerplate (with the usual punctuation errors), the rest of an oddly poetic style. Shevonsilva replied to me that this "was in another source", and progressively deleted the last three, then the last two paragraphs. I cannot imagine how anyone capable of reading the text could truncate it progressively in this way; it simply makes no sense.
• Many people (from the very first comment on his talk page) have asked Shevonsilva to "slow down"; the response to these requests has always been evasive. It is very difficult to cooperate with an editor with this approach. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I had no idea about point scoring thing. I don't need any point. Shevonsilva (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyway in reality, all are worring about the issues to improve the encyclopedia Shevonsilva (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• These issues wouldn't be a problem if they weren't repeated by the hundred. The title of almost all of the stubs need to be changed because they all end in the descriptive word as though it is part of the title. Ex, Farafangana District. District is not part of the proper noun. There are hundreds of articles that need to be moved. I informed them about the title thing a few days ago and they are still creating new articles with the same problem. Natureium (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Before they recently removed a bunch of comments from other users, Shevonsilva's talk page looked like this. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, they've removed a lot of comments. (Just a few examples.) And this may explain some of their approach to mass creation of sub-par articles. Natureium (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That is very very motivational, please refer full discussion (the approaches are well discussed there): https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Shevonsilva#Please_get_your_bot_to_take_a_little_more_care!. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, FYI, I stopped stub creation of administrative divisions. Anyway, I am glad to discuss naming issues of the articles with policy makers and we have re-structure naming of over 10,000 articles (I never created or edit those) if we are going to make a change on naming. I am thinking to focusing on my own works. Thanks all. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The issue here is whether Shevonsilva should be sanctioned for their conduct. I lean toward an indefinite block based on a mixture of WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR, and WP:IDHT. Shevonsilva has over 5,000 edits. They didn't start editing in earnest until 2014, and in the three years 2014-16, they made between 350 and 700 edits each year. In 2017 they had one edit. In less than half of 2018, they have made a whopping 3400 edits, but apparently mostly not benefiting the project. I don't see a temporary block as serving any purpose, other than perhaps to slow them down, as I don't expect their abilities to improve.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Possibly a ban on article creation with an appeal only allowed after they have diligently worked to repair the mess their mass creation made? I do fear, based on their writing here that there may be an English competency issue i.e. I am unsure whether they are not comprehending the issues being brought up and the need to address those issues, if they are simply engaging in willful WP:IDHT or if they simply lack the necessary clue to edit. If the first then it is possible they can learn to contribute constructively. Jbh 18:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree to a ban from creating any new articles or redirects, widely construed, for an indefinite period. GiantSnowman 18:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That would give thee time to practice editing, expanding, and sourcing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

can anyone kindly, confirm me, in Districts of Madagascar do I have to change the naming for the articles which only I have created, or, do I have to change the naming of all pre-existing ones too with the syntax, "name department"? Shevonsilva (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Question Oh wise admins, is there a tool for mass moving of pages? Natureium (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, bots.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, then, I will move articles I have created as this is everyone expects and that is my responsibility to do it as I am the creater. Heavy work. I will follow the pattern e.g. name (department). I will try to move other pre-existing ones (a heavy bulk, which I never created or edited, over 10000 articles) if I have a free time. Hope this is what all are expecting. Shevonsilva (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Wait, the name should be discussed first, and per country. Do not rush to move before we establish consensus. I am actually happy with Kenyan stub names, and they follow the same pattern earlier articles did.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, dear, I am very sorry. Just now I saw your message. I changed the naming for the articles I have created as everyone was expecting it(except for Kenya as someone was in it). I really feel this is breaking the Extended metaphor. I think we have amend the policy of naming related things like this. Anyway, no worries. I will revert the naming if it is helpful. Anyone can easily trackdown the pages through my user page which has all the link for the articles. I am always here to help and go with consensus. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I am a Senior Software Engineer and Researcher. There are a few cases. In user interface design (including web pages), we always follow the same metaphor to make the user less confused. The other part is search engines give more weights for URLs sometimes. If we use name (department), search engines have to use lexical analysis and probably gives a less weight, but, if we use name_department, it will filter the underscore, and, easily pick it. And, as I know it is a common practice to use name department than name (department). One good example is we call Hydrogen ion not Hydrogen (ion). To be honest, I only tried to help. I am getting nothing with these changes, only tried to help you all. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• One of the saddest aspects of all this is that this flood of stubs are so ridiculously minimal. "X is a in ." and nothing else, except an infobox giving the same information (except when it's mangled, as for Madagascar). Even where the sources cited clearly state the intermediate unit(s) (eg Regions in Madagascar), Shevonsilva will not add that extra information which could transform a pretty useless stub into one which enables the reader looking for "X district" to find out roughly where in the country it lies, and get more information about the area. I've upgraded Sakaraha District from the original version, using the source provided. I've pointed this out several times, to no effect. The flood of all-but-useless stubs, many of which would be much more useful as a redirect to an existing sourced and informative list of administrative units, has continued unchecked until it finally arrived at ANI.

There's a huge amount of cleanup to be done, which ought to be done by Shevonsilva before they are allowed to create any more mess.

There is also a need to add navigation links - thus Sakaraha District should have a hatnote link at Sakaraha, and similarly every article called "X " needs a link by a hatnote, dab page entry or redirect from "X". If this editor had the interests of the readers at heart, they would be making these links. It looks as if their sole goal is to add to the length of the list of "Articles" created, seen on their user page.

Editors with long memories may remember a slightly similar set of problems around obscure units of measurement a few years ago - over-enthusiastic stub creation based on a very dodgy source, and necessitating a lot of cleanup. PamD 20:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

yes, as I promised, now I am going to improve the articles I have created as the second round, after resolving the naming issue with moving articles. These are really my responsibilities. Thanks all. After resolving all the issues, I am really going to focus on my own stuff. I will try to finish all the issues tonight. I am measuring myself how fast I am. Thanks everyone. Shevonsilva (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I will go for coffee and come back address all the issues.  :)  :) Shevonsilva (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

PLEASE learn how to indent... --Tarage (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Title problems are fixed now. Shevonsilva (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Sub title problemsa are fixed now. Shevonsilva (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Added additional information for all the minimal stubs (as my stage 2 work). Hope things are fine now and resolved the issues. I am thinking to take a break now.Shevonsilva (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No, Shevonsilva. I'm afraid I do not see all the issues resolved. I recognise your keenness and enthusiasm to create all these microstubs. But I feel this editor is still not properly listening to, or acting upon, editor feedback here. Seeing some of those concerns deleted from their talk page raises 'alarm bells' with me. All these errors, taken on their own, are not normally of huge concern. But this user is clearly automating the process of stub creation in some way, and is not taking enough time to check that their work is good enough. Magnified over hundreds and hundreds of stubs, and possibly not always based on reliable sources, this is really not acceptable. (We had detailed discussions prior to Qbugbot going into operation making entomological stubs, which produced very high quality content. Sadly, and despite the best of intentions, this is not happening here.) I raised my concerns (diff]), and the user assured me s/he was doing this work manually, and admitted they shared my concern over the reliability of some of their key sources on which some pages' existence was actually based. But then the user deleted their answer to me (diff) and has not address my request for them to go back and fix the issues I raised. Since then, it's clear their process is automated. For example, looking at their contributions on 9th June between 16:57 and 16:58 they created 87 articles. That's one every 1.3 seconds! So the question we have to ask ourselves is whether we tolerate innumerable microstubs that a user doesn't work to clean up any errors (either before page creation, or afterwards) but which we wouldn't have had without their input. Or would we prefer not to have them at all if their content - or sometimes even verifiability - is in question? I tend to lean slightly towards the former, but remain very worried at the quality of such rapid, sloppy content creation. As with Qbugbot, a Village Pump discussion required page creation to be throttled back, and for checks to be made on batches of new pages. This isn't happening here, so perhaps a temporary block on page creation would be helpful, only to be lifted when there is a consensus that past articles have been cleaned up, wikilinked, referenced to WP:RS and any unverified content like this removed. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That description for Ibanda was in French encyclopedia as I remember (I check it later again). Yes I will re-scan all the stubs again and do another clean up for the content. Every work was Manuel, but, I use some different techniques to speed up (that is why I removed that description from the conversation as readers get wrong idea. Sorry.) I will do the clean up today (I have to do these as I am the one responsible for creating) :). Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Shevonsilva: Yes, the description of Ibanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo is in the French wikipedia, at fr:Ibanda. It is unsourced there. You have stolen the intellectual property of the editors of that French article by dumping a poor translation into English of their exact text into the English encyclopedia and claiming it to be your own work. That is unacceptable behaviour. Also, the two references you have cited might support the first sentence but have no mention of the rest of the content, so you should not have placed the references after the unsupported content. And you didn't bother to link to any other Misplaced Pages articles except "Commune" and "Congo", while the French article linked to Bukavu, Lake Kivu and Rwanda, so that your version of the French article was even less useful to the reader. This shows very little understanding of how to contribute to Misplaced Pages. And of course there needs to be a hatnote at our article on Ibanda, a Ugandan town, so that readers have a chance of finding the new stub about the DRCongo place. There just seems to be constant series of problems here. PamD 16:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

As we operate under a creative commons license, and it is just a translation from the French Misplaced Pages to the English Misplaced Pages, nothing has been stolen. Derivation, alteration, and usage of one's work on Misplaced Pages in perpetuity is something one can and should expect, and translating from one language to another is rather standard practice. Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

While that is technically true, Icarosaurvus, we do have guidelines for translation that should be followed. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 16:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This is true, and I wish to state that best practice was certainly not followed here; I likely should have stated that above. However, calling it theft of intellectual property struck me as rather disingenuous. Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link of we do have guidelines for translation. I noted a good point here, I can try to develop a more efficient bot to cross reference the missing bits across different encyclopedias with varied languages. Thnanks all.Shevonsilva (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It's good that you're trying to improve these articles now, but you're making upwards of 50 edits per minute. How is this possible? Natureium (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I am using my own automation which is much more technical. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

hi all, :) I improved the content of the articles, and, localized information, and, citations tag when it is more required. Hope thigs are better and fine now. Thanks all. Anyone please suggest me a place (in wikipedia) to discuss re-structuring issues like article naming specially with administrators and policy makers and other relevent personnels, or, this is the place for it? Thanks all. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Africa could be a good starting point. And pls stop editing until the consensus is clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, and, thanks for the link. I am too more interested about the naming consensus too. Anytime, I can surely help to revert all the namings with the top categories if it is required (for the articles I have created, and, if it is needed if i can help for other articles too). I too like to join with the naming consensus discussion too. Sorry for asking this in a different angle again. What would the better place (in wikipedia) to discuss a matter which is affecting whole Encyclopedia (e.g., if we take naming about all the areas in the wolrd or universe

(edit conflict) Shevonsilva, no, unfortunately the latest suite of articles you have just mass-edited at 17:56 UTC today still contain flaws. e.g. Matadjana and c.80 others all contain a url in the published field, which displays red in references. Can't you see this? Please explain why you didn't create one page, check it, and then carry on if it looked OK, or corrected it if not? I think WP:MEATBOT is relevant here - please read it and note that all bots require approval from Misplaced Pages:Bot Approvals Group. So, I'm pinging @Cyberpower678: to take a look at this issue, as I believe you've strayed into territory that needs involvement from an administrator with experience in that field. You tell us you are editing manually, but also that "I am using my own automation which is much more technical." Nick Moyes (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Clearly an unapproved bot is at work here, and a very controversial one at that. I approved Qbugbot, and I ran it through numerous stringent trials to ensure the community would accept it once approved. Shevonsilva is to stop using their automation immediately before they land themselves an indefinite block. If they want to run a semi-automated/fully-automated process at such a speed, they need to file a BRFA.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for letting me know about @Cyberpower678:. I am really looking forward to develop some useful approved bots for[REDACTED] and I may need his support in some point in future. Thanks for letting me know about reference url error (template is not allowing me to add an url, I was trying to find a way to include it in the template). Shevonsilva (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

HEY Shevonsilva Multiple people have told you to stop with these mass edits and you are continuing to run your bot at this very moment. STOP. Natureium (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, I fixed url issue too. :) Hope things are fine now. :) Anyway, let me know if there is any missing thing. Thanks all for your support. Shevonsilva (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Ooooops, and, we are still discussing title naming consensus. It will be interesting thing to discuss too. Thanks Shevonsilva (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, kindly refer the following, based on the feedback from some contributors, I have moved some administrative units in the format, for example, ame (department) even though it is directly breaking existing standardards of other relevent administrative units.

Kindly refer:

• Departments of Burkina Faso
• Communes of Burundi
• Departments of Chad
• Districts of Djibouti
• Departments of Gabon
• Districts of Ghana
• Districts of Madagascar
• Departments of Mauritania
• Arrondissements of Senegal

Now these have amalgamated two standards (i.e.: e.g., Name Department and Name (department)). This is not what I expect from my work on administrative units which are missed in the encyclopedia to create less-user friendly-ness during the navigation by an ordinary user who is not aware of the[REDACTED] formats (here now there are two formats). Kindly, please everyone, present your ideas over this matter. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Alssa1's harassment of Garageland66 and lack of competent editing

@Tanbircdq: If you want more than a very small chance of resolving... whatever it is; I suggest that you try to express your complaint concisely... say less than 100 words with 3-4 diffs to support it. Also, please specify what kind of action/resolution you are looking for. I really doubt anyone is going to spend the hour or so it would take to dig through the wall of text. My best advice is to pretend you have 60 seconds to convince someone, verbally, that there is a problem what you think should happen. Clarity and brevity are essential to resolving issues here. Jbh 23:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Garageland66 has displayed WP:IDHT behaviour on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, promoting the theory that evidence of antisemitism in the Labour Party prior to 2015 doesn't seem to exist multiple times this month, but ignoring requests from both me and Alssa1 to find reliable sources that discuss this, and then returning to bring up the same point again in a new discussion. Alssa1 is right to say that it's your responsibility to find sources that meet the WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements, but Garageland66 refuses to do so. Iffy★Chat -- 08:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

If Garageland66 has displayed WP:IDHT behaviour then this should be addressed directly with reference to previous discussions. Bringing up Alssa1's right to say that it's Garageland66's responsibility to find sources that meet WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements appears to be a disingenuous strawman attempt to deflect the overarching point here regarding the continuous disruptive personal attacks not the point of contention regarding the content. I feel there is no justification in Alssa1's interaction with Garageland66 over the past few weeks. I feel Garageland66 has displayed quite a lot of restraint in not retaliating at repeated provocation which a less an editor may have done. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jbhunley, thank you for your advice, I realise it was far too long, if the above is WP:TLDR then below is a concise summary of all the key points into two separated headings:

HARRASSMENT

Alssa1 appears to be continuously WP:WIKIHOUNDING Garageland66 on British political pages. Alssa1 has accused Garageland66 of WP:NOT HERE at least seven times on talk pages and edit summaries:

Alssa1 accusing Garageland66 of WP:NOTHERE: here and here.

Making reference to the Garageland66's editing history and WP:NOTHERE: here, here and here.

Further accusations of NOT:HERE in edit summaries: here and here.

Alssa1 made a what appears to be a unfounded WP:NOTHERE accusation against another editor here.

After I put a general warning being put on the page here, which Alssa1 editor acknowledged here but has still continued with the PAs here and here.

Even after Garageland66 highlighted WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF here, Alssa1's response was to basically deflect the issue back to Garageland66 with an accusation of WP:DGF here.

Considering Alssa1 has been an active editor for at least nine years I think this behaviour is very unbecoming, inappropriate for the encyclopedia and clearly disruptive. The repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, lack of WP:AGF and use of talk pages as WP:BATTLEGROUND, particularly against Garageland66 which I can only deem to constitute WP:HARASSMENT and shouldn't be tolerated.

Given the fact this has been highlighted to Alssa1 twice which appears to have been ignored, I'd like an admin to issue a formal warning that if this continues strong action will be taken in the form of a topic ban from these articles. Tanbircdq (talk)

INCOMPETENT EDITING

Alssa1 also appears to be adding content which isn't sourced from WP:RS and removing content which is supported by WP:RS.

Alssa1 claims to be aware of "WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements" here but added a YouTube video as a source to push a POV on the George Galloway page here. Tried to WP:EDITWAR it back into the article when it was removed by RolandR here whilst at the same time removing sourced content from Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi's article here and the Conservative Party (UK) here. Despite a talk page discussing being started about content on Momentum (organisation) page here. Alssa1 ignored WP:BRD and continued to WP:EDITWAR with Nonsenseferret here and here.

I'm sure the editor is more than aware of Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies so I can only assumed they've either adopted a WP:IDHT approach and edit from a WP:POV by adding content which isn't sourced from WP:RS and removing content which is supported by WP:RS or they aren't WP:INCOMPETENT.

I think it's right that this should also be noted so should this editing behaviour continue action may be taken by banning Alssa1 from these pages. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It takes far less time to check Garageland66s block log and contribution history than it does to read the walls of text above. POV-pushing, IDHT, edit warring, tendentious editing, misleading edit summaries, POV-railroading... Mildly surprised that they haven't already been topic banned from Politics-broadly construed. Neil S. Walker (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry that you don't have the time to examine the actual point of this report. Are you saying an editor with a previous history of being blocked remains stigmatised with this (in this case over six months ago), therefore, is fair game of being abused with extreme prejudice?

I'm still waiting for anyone to provide their opinion on Alssa1's actions rather than joining in the WP:WITCHHUNT to discredit Garageland66 which is what Alssa1 has been doing at every given opportunity for the past three weeks here. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

in this case over six months ago Well, that last block duration was 6 months... Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Can I just explain that the 6 month block was for edit-warring on the Eton College page not on any political page. I've done my time. I've learnt my lesson. I now have the right to edit. I've done nothing wrong and there has been no suggestion that I should be blocked again for anything I've done. I treat other editors courteously and feel that this current issue is because of differences of opinion. This is inevitable among editors and differences should be dealt with amicably on the Talk Pages. Garageland66 (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I've been aware of a situation at Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party for some time, though I haven't followed it in great detail. The article is a WP:COATRACK filled with pro and anti-Jeremy Corbyn material only tangentially related to the titular subject. I expect there are multiple editors problematic enough at that article to be sanctioned; it would take me 2-3 hours to determine this for sure. Based on a quick look at the talk page, Tanbircdq's comment appears to have some merit; most of Alssa1's comments are acronym soup claiming Garageland66 is WP:NOTHERE without any real evidence to support that, or any constructive participation in discussing how to improve the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment without going into further detail I would remind @Alssa1: and the others that accusing an editor of being NOTHERE repeatedly, outside a sanctions discussion and without evidence to back it up is very likely to be seen as a personal attack and, should it be repeated, I am reasonably confident an administrator would sanction you for such. Jbh 16:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• @Alssa1: diffs or knock it off, @Garageland66: Sources or knock it off, @Neil S Walker: Fix your signature, it violates WP:SIGLINK. You have an extra space between the colon and the N. It wrecks bots. Also, we expect a little more investigative effort than counting lines in the block log.---v/r - TP 17:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

User:87.102.116.36

Hi, is it possible for an admin to look into this this user, 87.102.116.36. I've noticed that he has an issue with articles particularly concerning the European Union, and after having a look through his edit history, appears to accuse anyone and everyone of having WP:COI conflicts. Here's his latest rant on Nuclear power in the European Union, which is still standing as a clean up notification on the article:

'Piss-take' (Partisan, possibly Irish Republican) map self-supplied by the article-creator in 2008 with his own arbitrary, unique or pedantic definition in order to specifically single out Northern Ireland as some sort of 'All-Ireland nuclear-power-free zone' (resulting the Isle of Anglesey, the Islands of the Outer Hebrides and of the Inner Hebrides, Orkney, Shetland, Ceuta, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Rügen, Öland, Gotland, parts of Stockholms Lan, Slovene Istria and the Prekmurje region all shown as having declared themselves as 'independent nuclear-power-free states', despite being integral parts of the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Germany, Sweden and Slovenia respectively); the Isle of Man wrongly included despite having always been formally considered as being outside of the EU (or even the UK).

The edit is a few days old and still standing. I was led to his case by finding this on the European Court of Justice talk page following an archival of talk page notification:

"Only the versions of the documents published in the ‘Reports of Cases' or the ‘Official Journal of the European Union' are authentic. The other documents available on the Institution's website are given for the purposes of public information and are subject to amendment." So, basically, it can be legally-speaking false or factually misleading or incorrect! Nice legal disclaimer here (such as this one )! The original assertion was inserted by one editor , on 1 February 2009, completely unsourced anyway! You are just a (paid) EU civil servant public-relations (PR) spin doctor with NO background or education in law! Stop wasting MY time here, I am out! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

His edit history demonstrates similar behaviour. I'm not sure if an official warning has been given, but it might be an idea, along with, obviously, a revert of his contributions on Nuclear power in the European Union. Luxofluxo (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

He has a point, to a degree, in that I'd agree the map at File:European Union map Nuclear Energy Countries.png is shit. Fish+Karate 08:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

That may be so, although the article does provide an explanation in the picture description and someone with more knowledge on the subject may be able to say why it was done like that:

European Union countries (contiguous land mass) employing nuclear energy for electricity generation are marked in orange. Those without nuclear power stations are shown in pale blue (including islands belonging to countries that do have reactors but no presence on this island).

However, the point remains that the wider behaviour of accusing everyone he's in conflict with of having a COI and leaving clean up messages like that deserves a warning. Luxofluxo (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

His behaviour is to say the least unimpressive, but the map is genuinely bad so I have just deleted it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jonathan. Glad to see it wasn't just me. Luxofluxo, I absolutely agree the behaviour is not helpful. Are you aware that you don't need to be an administrator to discuss this with the user - you can find their talk page at User_talk:87.102.116.36. You can find a list of templates at Misplaced Pages:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace, or just talk to them like they're a normal human being. Fish+Karate 10:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Bizarre edit summaries / hounding on 13 Reasons Why

I reverted User:TimmyAU twice over the removal of production info in the lede of the 13 Reasons Why article. His response has been simply bizarre, as can be seen in the following edit summaries:

• here - "Chaheel Riens" is clearly a character from a book and not a real name: you are distorting articles for the purposes of advertising and not a real person
• here - added citation qualifying description whilst defending integrity of wiki by calling out false name of marketing assistant using character name from Alan Dean Foster's novel, "The Man Who Used The Universe"
• here - cleaned up coding dirt whilst watching interaction and attempted intimidation from marketing assistant using false name from obscure old novel to hide fakenews activities
• here - minor paragraph edit: have placed a 48 hourly alert on my iphone to remind me to check the aggressive edit-warring of the falsenamed promoter of brand names not directly relevant to the wiki article and especially not appropriate to the initial search summary on Google
• here - every48hrs: abridgement of linguistic reference to recordings to unify millennial generation with previous generations: watching you, fake novel character, every 48 hours
• here - linguistic abridgement: researching in depth the influence of a certain fake contributor's name and articles affected and possibly corrupted with advertising

I have no idea what to do about this - I don't think ignoring it is appropriate. Are they personal insults or accusations of paid editing/COI? I'm pretty certain they come close to hounding, but, well - it's just weird. Editor informed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's another one: clarifying character name by adding surname: finding lots of interesting contributions from fakenews contributor with 9 years of history: lots and lots of interesting ads embedded in wikis

Seems to be making small edits to the article, purely so they can comment on my contributions/identity as they do so. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens - Have you tried creating a discussion on the article's talk page and pinging the user? Have you tried discussing the content dispute with the user directly? I'd do these if you haven't already - create a new talk page discussion and ping the user, then leave a message on the user's talk page and point them to that discussion. Let me know how this goes. ~Oshwah~ 16:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

This is apparently what it's about. I'm going with the OP's description of "just weird".--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23 - Yeah that is a bit... interesting... ~Oshwah~ 17:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• At the Teahouse, I've directed the user to go read WP:AGF until they understand what the problem is. Oshwah's also right: you could have started a talk page discussion to explain things more thoroughly than an edit summary would. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not the changes to the article that concern me, it's the edit summaries, and the apparent belief that because my name is taken from a novel that makes me ineligible to contribute, and the insinuation that I'm a promotional editor: fake contributor's name and articles affected and possibly corrupted with advertising, fakenews contributor with 9 years of history: lots and lots of interesting ads embedded in wikis. and intimidation from marketing assistant. Accusations such as those are no longer the province of a content dispute, surely? Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hah! consider the source. I'd not let it bother me.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone think Timmy needs a PAID or COI warning?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not immediately seeing why. If anything, he's downplaying corporate involvement. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Those actions are a failure to assume good faith, which has not been explained to him until just now. If he refuses to understand WP:AGF's application to this, then I'd start considering further accusations to be personal attacks. Once I see what his response is to me telling his to "read WP:Assume good faith until you understand the problem here", then we'll have more to go on. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: I've left a message on TimmyAU's talk page explicitly spelling out the situation as it applies to him, just in case he doesn't check back on the Teahouse or misses the point of my post there. I've added the article to my watchlist. If he continue accusing you of being some sort of "fake account marketing assistant" or whatever, I'll treat it as a personal attack. I could imagine that his argument implies that WP:UNDUE might apply, which is why I'd be happy to see some discussion on the article's talk page instead of just in edit summaries, but I'm not immediately thinking of a developed form of that argument that I believe so I'm not gonna expect it.

Until there's further action from anyone involved, I'm not seeing anything to be done at this point. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, with regard to this edit summary from TimmyAU "clarifying character name by adding surname: finding lots of interesting contributions from fakenews contributor with 9 years of history: lots and lots of interesting ads embedded in wikis" I would like to ask him to provide oh, let's say five examples of when I've embedded ads in links for promotional purposes. Even if this wasn't about me, I'd be interested to see what the results were, and what were considered to be promotional editing. I must be pretty good if I've gotten away with it for nine years... Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Slow cooked edit warring

• MHS1976 (talk · contribs)

Over use of 'era' in headings. Until recently the edits have been far enough apart not to trigger 3rr warnings, but it's an issue when it drags on for weeks, entails numerous notices, and includes edit summaries such as these ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; . At any rate, calling this edit warring doesn't quite do it justice. Several editors have attempted to engage in conversation, and the response has been to repeat an unsupported claim: ; ; ; . 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Investigating... ~Oshwah~ 05:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This is definitely edit warring by definition and the spirit of the rule - you don't have to violate 3RR in order to be edit warring. 3RR is just a bright-line rule to "draw a line in the sand" and give editors a guideline that, if violated, will almost always be seen as edit warring and any resulting blocks applied viewed as justified and appropriate by the community. This user has engaged in this behavior between two other users over the last few weeks; (s)he's reverted the article in a repeated back-and-fourth manner and in-place of following dispute resolution protocol and hasn't discussed it on the article's talk page (none of users involved have done so) - that's edit warring... the number of times that it occurs in a day, week, whatever doesn't matter. Anyways... instead of blocking, I went ahead and applied full protection to the article in order to nudge everyone involved to discuss the various disputes on the article's talk page, and warned each user recently involved in the dispute. If the disruption continues after the full protection expires, let me know and I'll be happy to step in and take things further if needed. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~ 05:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Problematic edits by Altamimi579

Altamimi579 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit warring on Hotat Bani Tamim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and to some degree on Racism in Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Adding unsourced content / name change on Hotat Bani Tamim claiming it is "obvious". Will not discuss on talk pages nor user talk:Altamimi579. Has been blocked before for edit warring. EWN archive Altamimi579 Jim1138 (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Investigating... ~Oshwah~ 07:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yup, clear case. The user even continued reverting the article after being left a warning on their user talk page for edit warring. I've blocked the user for 36 hours for this (extended to this duration due to recently being blocked for the same issue less than a month ago). ~Oshwah~ 07:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the user added a new talk page discussion soon before I applied the block. For the record, I'm open to unblocking the user if they create an unblock request and agree and promise to stop editing the article until the discussion reaches a consensus or successful close. Pinging Altamimi579 so the user is aware of my response here. ~Oshwah~ 07:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The source left on talk:Hotat Bani Tamim was a blog. I replied indicating it was wp:NOTRS Jim1138 (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Jim1138 - Cool deal; at least a discussion is started and awaiting the user's response when either their block expires or they request an unblock and agree to the conditions I outlined both here and under the block notice left on their user talk page. Hopefully the user will chose to discuss rather than cause more disruptive behavior ;-) ~Oshwah~ 21:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

"Best known for IP"

• 87.54.9.210 (talk · contribs)

First of all, I apologise for my very poor technical approach while filing the report, I am very dumb at doing these I'll admit it. The IP described as follows (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP) has returned with a new address, and in the ONLY (so far) article we have a beef in, Quique Sánchez Flores, they continue to taunt me in their summaries. This time, they upped the ante by removing references that I had just added just to reinstate their version, on the grounds that my English is bordering on the pathetic (see diff here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Quique_S%C3%A1nchez_Flores&diff=845874914&oldid=845815780).

Don't know if anything else is needed in this report, but I will provide it upon request. NOTE: User:Mattythewhite, also familiar with the situation, redirected me here; also, please note as this person says in the main article about them (or is mentioned to have said in the form of a diff) that they get/got tired of people randomly undoing all their work so they resorted to antagonizing because it amounted to the same as being courteous. I am the one trying to reach a compromise in the wording of Mr. Flores' article and adding new refs (I don't even go near the other articles the person works on), they are having none of that and blanket revert! Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 36 hours for disruptive editing. Whether or not this user is the "Best known for IP" LTA can be ignored given their recent edit warring, reverts, and inability to respond appropriately to warnings. If the user is found to be this LTA, any admin is free to update or change the block I applied; no need to ask first ;-) ~Oshwah~ 09:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Erpert: you closed this discussion. Does that mean you've examined the evidence and decided that this is not the "Best Known For" IP? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless I misread something, Oshwah indicated that s/he examined the evidence. Erpert 16:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It might have been my fault for not responding clearly (and if that's the case, please accept my apologies). I looked at the edits by the IP and determined that a block was justified for disruptive editing and I stopped there. I did not examine or compare the IP user's edits to try and associate them with the "Best known for IP" LTA and make that determination. I wanted to leave that part for someone else whose more familiar with this LTA than I am to make that determination, or for others to state that the block imposed was good enough... one or the other :-) ~Oshwah~ 16:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the close. This discussion is obviously not done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - Sorry if that was my fault; I tried to indicate what I did but it may have gotten misinterpreted due to me not being clear. I didn't mean or want to dump this discussion off in the middle like that - I just thought that someone would be around that's familiar with this LTA and could quickly identify this IP user as one of them. It would be my luck that I'd spend time diving and investigating this only for someone to go, "Oh, yeah! Easy peasy - definitely him..." and call it out in a snap. I'll be happy to investigate and determine if this IP user is this LTA if what's what is wanted... just let me know. ~Oshwah~ 22:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I understood what you meant, but I guess you never really know how you'll be interpreted. I'm not really an expert in identifying socks of this IP, but I know we have some around here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - Cool deal; if this sits unresolved for bit longer, I'll take a dive and figure out what the deal is. ~Oshwah~ 04:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know that I'm an authority, but I've tangled with BKFIP before. Edits such as this and this, coupled with the generally belligerent attitude suggest that this is indeed BKFIP, but given that the number of edits isn't large, I'm not 100% certain. Vanamonde (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Problematic editing by Missana.marco

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

Missana.marco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly adding wp:FRINGE content, likely citing Missana.marco's own papers to:

• Cosmic microwave background (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Olbers' paradox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Physical cosmology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Redshift (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The same or similar content has been added by Natalia.missana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jim1138 (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

There's no question in my mind that these two users are the same person - they added the exact same content to Redshift here and here, as well as made similar changes to the other articles listed on this ANI report. I can't block these accounts for this fact given the timeline of their edits, however. Neither one of these accounts are blocked, and it looks like the edits stopped after May 31 with Natalia.missana and then began on June 4 with Missana.marco - so there's no block evasion or obvious attempts to violate policy between these accounts (such as editing between the accounts to appear as if they were different people, etc). ~Oshwah~ 09:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I seem to have gotten an explanation of the edits and a confirmation that the two are the same on my talk page here Jim1138 (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Jim1138 - Well at least the user is confirming this... I think that the proper next steps going forward from here are to try and explain WP:FRINGE to the user and try and educate / help them if they're willing to learn. If they ignore such attempts and keep adding this kind of content, I would imagine that this will become a problem when the user begins edit warring to keep their changes, or engaging in similar repeated disruption... ~Oshwah~ 10:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I left a wp:fringe link on her talk page. Maybe I should have elaborated? Jim1138 (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Jim1138 - I think we should follow up with the user on their user talk page and just make sure that they understand WP:FRINGE. This feels like good faith confusion to me more-so than purposeful ignorance. Thoughts? ~Oshwah~ 21:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: She contributes rather seldomly. I'll leave a message. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Jim1138 - It's the thought that counts ;-). Cool deal; let me know if I can help with anything else. Otherwise, I don't think there's much more to do here and (unless you object) I'm going to go ahead and close this discussion :-) ~Oshwah~ 22:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Marco Missana, the author of the text, is my father but he's not able to modify wikipedia, so I do it for him. I'm Natalia Missana and I'm a physicist but not an astronomer. Sorry, but it's not easy for me to understand the problem and to write the text in the right way. I inserted a link to an article that was pulished in a scientific review of the Italian Physical Society (https://en.sif.it/) written only in Italian. The article, in the Italian version, is not on line and there is no English version. Italian Physical Society suggested to me, in an email, to put in a website the English version translated with the help of my father.

All the text inserted in Misplaced Pages is written by my father, who worked for forty year as an astronomer in Observatory of Milan. Do you want me to send you the email with the authorization of the Italian Physical Society? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missana.marco (talk • contribs) 11:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Missana.marco, and thanks for adding a comment and participating in this discussion here. It looks like we just need to educate you on the addition of fringe content to articles, and help you to identify what this is so that you can avoid adding them in the future. Have you reviewed this guideline page yet? Do you have any questions about it at all? ~Oshwah~ 12:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Vote stacking concern

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

I may be way off base here. I ran across something I haven’t before seen: the WikiProject Conservatism talk page here. The page contains eight RfC notifications and some other discussion notifications. Indeed, this is the nature of 11 of the 18 sections. Perhaps this is entirely innocent. An RfC is designed to draw additional editors to a discussion. But, this project looks more like a club for conservatives. Whatever the intent, RfC notifications posted on this page could result in swaying consensus by selective notification. On its face, this looks like chronic canvassing. I’m not asking for any sanctions, just voicing a concern.

Note: If there is like activity in any other “side” of any contentious area, I would be equally concerned. O3000 (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about votestacking, but that seems like a forum disguised as a talk page. Erpert 15:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that Winkelvi, the editor who posted most of those RfC notices, sought to get a third editor involved in a content dispute between the two of us on the Diamond and Silk page (Winkelvi repeatedly removed reliably sourced text which corrected false conspiracy theories that D&S were pushing). This appears to have been done to get the third editor to assist Winkelvi in the content dispute or find something sanctionable about my behavior. The third editor, Lionelt, had early that day frivolously sought to get me sanctioned, which is why Winkelvi contacted the user. I consider this to be an example of canvassing, but my understanding of Wiki policy and precedent on this precise subject is admittedly poor. Is it canvassing? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a project page, not unlike Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography, or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Women in Red. AN/I is the wrong venue for this discussion. Take it to the project TP where its members can explain how WikiProjects work. 16:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This has been going on for a few months, so it's not surprising to see such abuse of our dispute resolution processes again. There is a transparent effort underway to co-opt WikiProject Conservatism and form an association of editors who hold the same POV. As far as I can tell, it involves email, gratuitous barnstars, and certain editors showing up at various content and conduct disputes in which they have otherwise been uninvolved. Anyone paying any attention knows that there are approximately four bad actors in this scheme. I'm not sure what can be done about it.- MrX 🖋 17:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that happening in American politics articles for years. Certain admins always show up at the right time, AE complaints get filed with pile on supports, etc. It's not against policy for editors to independently follow each other. It's only against policy to coordinate off-wiki.--v/r - TP 18:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting that there is a note on the project page saying "This project does not extol any point of view, political or otherwise, other than that of a neutral documentarian." I guess that means it could include people who don't hold right-wing views and are interested in the project because it helps them check up on potential NPOV matters. That's surely how the rest of us should make use of it. Deb (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly what it has always been. Unless you have evidence of collusion to skew Misplaced Pages articles. We all know Misplaced Pages leans left in political articles; not right. Even Jimbo has commented on this before.--v/r - TP 19:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, there are editors who are members of that project including DGG, myself, SPECIFICO, Carrite, Binksternet, etc. who profess no political persuasion so attempts to pigeonhole anyone as something we're not is inappropriate. 19:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Even Jimbo said it, so it so must be true.- MrX 🖋 20:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll take an authority over an editor who gets engaged in a lot of heated disputes in the topic of American politics assertion without evidence anyday.--v/r - TP 21:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Every time I've notified a project of an RfC or discussion at an article talk page, it's always been at every project listed on that same talk page as "...of interest to the following WikiProjects". I've done it several times with various RfCs and always with every project listed at the talk page. My only intent has been to get as many voices in the RfC as possible, nothing more. If doing so is considered "vote stacking" or canvassing, it's news to me. If that's indeed what it is, I'll discontinue doing it, but it should be stated that I was completely unaware that it would be against policy. It seemed logical to me that editors involved in the projects listed at the article talk page would be interested in commenting at an RfC concerning an article where a project has an interest. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

To be fair the first point on WP:Canvassing under appropriate notification is "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Misplaced Pages collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." PackMecEng (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Well yes, but it goes on to say: "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions." The editors on that page have ardently supported the same POV both in article TPs and drama boards. O3000 (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

On what basis are you saying project conservatism are just a bunch of POV pushers? Seems like a charge you should try and show rather than just assume. Plus looking at the member list it seems fairly diverse, even our friend SPECIFICO is a member. PackMecEng (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about that one page. I really am trying to avoid discussing particular editors as I'm not looking for sanctions. O3000 (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder of policy on canvassing, PackMecEng. Link to the section is here I'd like to further note that the policy also states, "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions...Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief". Which is exactly what I have been doing. I always copy and paste the same message each time I have done this at project pages, just changing the link to the discussion and name of the article, of course. The messages I left today stated, "RfC at Richard B. Spencer - There is an RfC at the Richard B. Spencer talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in." Polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief. And in today's instance, placed at the following project pages: . -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng beat me in posting this point. The projection is high with the ASPERSIONS about using email and any thinking that there is a conspiracy in using the top method listed under appropriate notifications. Members of a public wikiproject and watchers of its talk page may not hold the views of that project, but rather want to collaborate on coverage of that topic. Big difference. --Netoholic @ 20:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this the purpose of Wikiprojects? Natureium (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

SNOW CLOSE - every WikiProject ever created would be subject to this argument - the OP needs to stop-breathe-think about what exactly is being suggested here. It's a time sink...but of the highest quality among time sinks, if that matters. 😂 20:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages . SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, they got the color right. O3000 (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Yellow is the new red.- MrX 🖋 20:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I found the article on Andrevan to be in particularly poor taste. Since when do we issue newsletters talking about editors by name along with sanctions? Maybe it’s just me. O3000 (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

No. Best practice is to announce an RfC to all wikiprojects listed on an article talk page. Avoiding the appearance of vote stacking isn't that difficult folks.- MrX 🖋 20:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, many people are aware that there are strategies to avoid the appearance of vote staking. Thank you for reminding us.--v/r - TP 21:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think that admins are going to find anything to use admin tools for here. I've watchlisted the project almost since its inception, and editors there should be aware that there are a lot more people looking at what they post, than just those who actually comment. If you look at the edit history of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Conservatism/References, it started out as a listing of a lot of sources, a significant number of which were extreme-right non-RS that were listed as though any good editor would find them useful to cite. There's been a history of the project as a gathering place for editors who are enthusiastic about present-day conservative US politics, as opposed to simply wanting to make sure that we have well-written content about all forms of conservatism all around the world and in all periods of history. A lot more of the discussions are alerts about how some conservative content is being presented unsympathetically, than alerts about pages where the conservative perspective needs to be balanced by a liberal one. But there's no bright line here: it all ends up as content disputes about POV, and there's nothing wrong with having an opinion on one side of such disputes. The problem to watch out for is if an editor makes a career of only adding pro-conservative content and removing opposing views. More editors should take a look at Misplaced Pages:Writing for the opponent. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oh, and if an editor lists a discussion at WikiProjects, the best practice, and the best way to avoid being accused of canvassing, is simply to put a note on the discussion page, disclosing that those notifications have been made. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO - that handy newsletter (to which I don't subscribe but have seen on the TP of others) is first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing...and it often contains credible material we should not discount (if we are truly looking to abide by NPOV, BALANCE & WEIGHT). Our WP projects are especially handy at AfD, for those who are not aware of how that works, ask a knowledgable admin, keeping in mind that they are all knowledgable so I'm not showing "favoritism" to only the knowledgeable ones. On a lighter note, (excuse my Tumpism), but I have to tell you...you haven't lived if you haven't been watching the Ultra Spiritual Life videos - amazing entertainment - BIGLY - have never seen anything like it. 20:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This is stupid. Sorely tempted to close this. --Tarage (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Users repeatedly adding false information to Informal Talks page

Pages: Informal Talks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Please refer to the list below:

1. 203.232.213.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)}
2. 123.115.61.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. 61.98.217.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who's been vandalising since 2016)
4. 태현 정 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since the creation of this page, some users have repeatedly added false (sometimes ridiculous) English names for the representatives. As the names are often unknown, I do not include them in the page, but some users have repeatedly added false ones without sources for fun, despite me leaving messages on their walls many times. Some names I know are obviously fake, either because it's the name of a celebrity, or I know the actual name of the representative, but just haven't added it to the page.

Examples of some of the edits

1. Link I know for a fact 李越's English name is not Dean as I previously found his actual name on a university website, but haven't added it to the page yet. Reference
2. Link
3. Link This user decided to change from one fake name to another, this time to "Berlusconi", the name of the Italian president involved in a sex scandal
4. Link Changing from one fake name to another
5. Link

There are many more edits, but it's too many to list.

Some earlier examples:

1. Link From Jan, 2018
2. Link From Dec, 2017
3. Link July 2017

While they are different users, due to the consistent editing style (of adding false, sometimes ridiculous names), I am almost certain they are the same person. This has been an on-going issue for a very long time. I have left messages on their walls many times, in particular (61.98.217.150), but they have never responded. I previously reported this issue 2 years ago. Please refer to It ended up in the page being semi-protected.

Please help me with this issue by either blocking the users or protecting the page. Thank you for your time!PurpleLights123 (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to admit, the Ma Ding/Martin Gaye (Marvin Gaye?) thing is funny, but, yes, this is disruptive. I would advise page protection due to persistent vandalism, which can be found at WP:RPP. —Javert2113 (Let's chat! | Contributions) 17:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I've added semi-protection to the article for a few months in order to stop this. Whether or not the edits are true is the wrong way to look at this; it's whether the edits are referenced that's important. References are how we verify that changes being made to article content are accurate and true, and the contributions to the article in question clearly lack these additions. ~Oshwah~ 21:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Block of Wilhelm von grundwasser

This showed up at AIV, and I blocked indef. If somebody says they're a banned user, they get blocked. That said, I'm posting this here as an FYI. There is no hint who User:Wilhelm von grundwasser is. — Maile (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Maile66 - Your block is fine. A self-admission of being a blocked or banned user like that is enough to warrant action on the account. If they wish to explain, they can file an unblock request and we'll hear them out - no big deal. In fact, you beat me to the punch by only a minute or so ;-) ~Oshwah~ 21:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Maile66 and Oshwah: Thanks for the quick resolution earlier. I debated whether to put that at AIV or here, instead, but figured it would probably get actioned quicker there. Home Lander (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Home Lander - No problem; that's what we're here for :-) ~Oshwah~ 04:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:BALKANS

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

1. Max Legrottaglie97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)}
2. CarloMagno96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Gothius90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is a requests for arbitration involving Macedonia and some closely related topics, especially in these sensitive topics. However both these users (who might be socks to User:A. Katechis Mpourtoulis) have been indiscriminately editing, without talking to other users, going against general consensus on these topics, just doing EW and pure vandalism. The pages edit were protect, to no effect. No ammout of talk, multiple users reverting and warnings have worked.

Examples:

Coltsfan (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

These accounts are  Confirmed to each other. They are  Unrelated to A. Katechis Mpourtoulis.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:Casting aspersions

Would an admin kindly inform User:Doniago that calling another editor "rather tendentious" without providing evidence of such is a violation of WP:Casting aspersions, and if Doniago is unwilling to provide such evidence, the comment should be struck? Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken - I left Doniago a discussion on his user talk page. I think it sufficiently gets the point across and keeps everything peaceful so we can move on. Let's start from here and see where things go :-) ~Oshwah~ 07:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Richard.sutt and WP:CIR

I think it is about time now to bring to the attention of the noticeboard the actions and edits of Richard.sutt (talk, contributions), a relatively new (<1 year old) account that has in that time completed over 1000 edits mostly under 20 bytes (Edit count and stats by WMF Labs). I would estimate that of the 1000+ edits, 10% are actually constructive while the other 90% are either copy-pasting text between articles (often unnecessary and unneeded) or fixing errors created during attempted constructive edits (A good example is Chasmosaurinae article history). 43 of the 50 edits shown by default on Chasmosaurinae are by Richard.sutt, and of those 11 had 0 change in article size in bytes, 10 were removing content (largest removal was 251 with an average around 50) and the remainder were adding content (largest addition was 336 with an average around 50). This repetitive addition->fixes->revertion->addition cycle is found on most articles edited by Richard.sutt, and has become a great inconvenience to the regular editors of these articles as Richard.sutt has not once replied to a request or comment on a talk page where we try and assist them in learning proper syntax and recommendations for articles (see Edit stats link above). While not an urgent matter to resolve I will now ping Lusotitan, FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, MWAK, IronGargoyle, Casliber, Dunkleosteus77, Fanboyphilosopher and Elmidae as individuals who have reverted, tried to talk to, and had an earlier discussion on Richard.sutt. I myself am unsure what actions I would recommend are taken, as WP:CIR is most definitely violated by the edits of this user, but my lack of experience on what would happen (temp/indef block, topic ban or full ban) means I cannot make a judgement. --IJReid  05:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

My calculus at the moment runs something like:

+: well-intentioned, clearly knowledgeable in some areas, fair amount of good edits

-: strongly laced with fatal sloppiness (e.g. that series of edits to WD identifiers starting around here - clearly didn't check a single one), tendency to edit-war about WTF head-scratchers (e.g. ), doesn't communicate, cooperate, or take corrections on board one. little. bit.

It's the last one that makes them a net negative in my opinion. Requiring constant vigilance and damage control on the part of those few editors that know the subject area well enough, and then giving every impression that this state of affairs will continue indefinitely because there's no communication at all, is not a sustainable situation. I'd request a "start talking" block at this point. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Dream Focus repeatedly insinuating that I have a mental illness, etc.

Dream Focus (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly questioning my mental state and refusing to retract these comments despite repeated warnings. I have been placing the warnings directly beneath the attacks in question rather than on his talk page since I'm banned from the latter. I can't imagine how anyone could consider remarks like the following to be acceptable.

Normally, editors who repeatedly violate copyright and deny any wrongdoing even after multiple warnings get blocked on those grounds alone to prevent the further plagiarism that appears almost certain to happen, right? So what we have here is an editor who shouldn't even be allowed contribute to the encyclopedia because of the risk of copyvio, harassing other editors and questioning their mental state: I really can't see how this editor has not been blocked for this yet, with the only explanation I can think of being that TonyBallioni (my traditional go-to for copyright issues) and his talk page watchers are too "involved".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards