Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:54, 7 February 2018

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Introduction of a malware link into a citation

There's an incident involving a possible malware link being introduced into a {{cite web}} ref by user Ehipassiko2 (talk · contribs) that I'm hesitating to call intentional (hence not "reporting" the user in the section header), but which has potential negative side effects to the encyclopedia, so thought I'd better raise it here in case something needs to be done. (Previously raised at user talk page, and at Teahouse). There are a series of six edits at Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people which mostly appear benign to me, but two among them raised a red flag:

1. 23:53, February 2, 2018 – (→‎Feminist support: Added relevant statements by the radical feminist, Catharine MacKinnon) adds text with {{cite web}} having valid title and a url identified as containing HEUR.Trojan.Script.Generic.
2. 00:12, February 3, 2018 – (→‎Catharine MacKinnon) overwrites good title with "HARM IS HARM".

As I said at the Teahouse, there's been no discussion yet, I still assume good faith on the part of this user, and had there been only one such edit, I would have waited for their response. But given that malware was involved, and that the second edit seemed to confirm the first, I'm not sure if waiting is a good idea. The fact that in every other way, the edits appear to be constructive, is either a mitigating factor and a sign that it's all just a big mistake, or else some clever camouflage for ill intent in a topic area under discretionary sanctions.

Although I'm an occasional lurker here, I haven't participated much, so not sure where to go with this. Since a block seems very premature, I guess I'm really only asking for vigilance, although I don't know how that might translate into ANI-ese, and suspect it might not. I suppose mostly, I raised it because I couldn't in good conscience just sit on this without saying something. Should I just forget about this? Mathglot (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I am confirming that I encouraged Mathglot to file this ANI report in a Teahouse discussion. Lacking expertise in malware, I thought it best to bring the matter to wider attention here. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI I have posted this Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Input requested in hopes of getting as many eyes on this as possible. MarnetteD|Talk 05:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, oncenturyavenue.org seems to have been a legitimate domain at one time judging by Google searches, connected to a legitimate student newspaper connected to NYU Shanghai. It may have been hacked. Additionally, the citation placed by the user is accurately sourced to the NYU Shanghai Writing Department. How they got to the link is unclear. The citation was incorrectly titled, actually using the title of the other source. "HARM IS HARM" is actually the title of the oncenturyavenue page, though it could stand to be made less shouty. How they got to the link is unclear, but it does still show up in Google search, so it may have just been itself cited on another site, and the user chose to use that information and cite the original source without looking into it. I'm willing to assume good faith here. Pinguinn 🐧 06:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
• What specific tool did you use to identify potential malware?

Looking at Special:Diff/823719240, the meta-scan by Virus Total shows that 1 of 67 and 0 / 67 tools find malware at the URLs added by the user. I suspect that the results are false positive. It is also possible that the website has transient malware from an advertising network BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)A

I looked at the Fortinet results for more details. The description is just the generic phrase “”. I’m fairly confident this is either a false positive or a transient occurance. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

My ISP, which uses an OpenDNS filter to check for malware and other things, blocks it as phishing, but per they appear to have nothing on it. Pinguinn 🐧 06:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be a suspicious script on every page, which I've preserved here. It's inserted before the DOCTYPE declaration, so I am pretty confident the site was hacked. I don't know what the code does, though. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, it appears to be a cryptocurrency miner. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, duh. I'll blacklist it. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted the website owners yet? I'll do that if no one else has. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been following with interest, and just wanted to thank everyone for their help and intervention. I have one request: the original problem was noted in edits by a brand new user (Ehipassiko2 (talk · contribs)), and I don't want them to feel bitten or get scared off by the talk page comments. If there's someone here who reckons they have good bedside manner and would be willing to have a look at my comments on their talk page and perhaps add something if you think it would be helpful, I'd appreciate it. Thus far, they have not responded, so I hope they are still paying attention, or will come back at some point and notice the comments. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

User:MarkCamilleriPhD

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

This account is a WP:SPA for promotion of his own books. He's been warned many times at his talk page by three editors (including me) about spamming his own books as a reference. Now, following a level 4 warning for advertising, he's switched tactics by posting Airline product, a near-verbatim paste of three pages of one of his books he's been spamming for in references. The article is referenced only by his book and one other source, the latter of which I assume is a reference from his book. Nomination for speedy deletion as spam by User:331dot was declined as the article itself doesn't advertise anything specific. But this account is clearly meant solely for self-promotion - note his rationale at my talk page for his continual reference spam: "Honestly, I just wanted to share and disseminate knowledge from my book. I genuinely believe that it is a useful resource for students and practitioners. My book has been endorsed by some of the best academics in Tourism and Hospitality." The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

User is not responding at all on Talk, so I have blocked for now and left a message. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that the page has now been speedy deleted as promotional. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Worth noting that he also tweeted about the article shortly after creating it: . The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we all know that this user is not here for anyone's benefit but his own, however, let's see if he starts to respond on his talk page. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It was worth firing up Twitter for the first time this year. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 10:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it that way at all. It's an expert, trying to contribute his expertise, and not knowing our rules. He needs counseling, not banning. (I mention that the most suspicious thing about the article was that it was exceptionally coherent and well-written for a WP general article, and therefore looks like it came from elsewhere; the contribution someone like that can make at WP is enormous, if we do not chase them away. All that needs to be done is to explain the rules, and how to contribute as an expert. Possibly he won't want to continue under our rules--I know experts who will not contribute here because they do not want their precise wording altered--but I also know experts who do understand that this is an important supplement to academic writing.

This seems so very typical of ANI--a rush to conclusions before considering that the motive might be a good one (even though the action showed lack of knowledge of our rules. Actually, I think that relatively few mainstream academic come here to contribute to content article to promote their work--if they want to promote themselves, they try write an autobiography. And when they do promote their work, it's usually just by adding references to it, not by writing major articles summarizing the mainstream orthodox view of their field. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue for me is failure to respond to numerous alerts, but I also noted that his edit summaries consistently refer to "important" sources and so on, this does not show the kind of humility I find characteristic of genuinely excellent researchers. However, we don't yet now if this is the generic issue of academics not realising that Misplaced Pages doesn't work like academic publishing, or blatant self-promotion. I reserve judgment. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

DGG makes a number of good points concerning Misplaced Pages and experts, but he overlooks some pretty significant signs that this editor, in particular, is not the kind of expert we need.First off, I personally find the the addition of "PhD" to a user number to be grating. Certainly those who have achieved doctorates have every right to the honorific "Doctor", but to put in on a user name seems to me to be a pre-emptive strike against having their edits examined closely: "He's a PhD, so what he writes must be correct." Second, taking an excerpt from one's own book and making a Misplaced Pages article from it is either lazy writing or pormotionalism: they would never presume to try to do that with a professional journal or even a commercial magazine, so they obviously think of Misplaced Pages as a lesser form of information dispersal. Third, to promote the article by tweeting about it confirms that the purpose of the article is not to improve Misplaced Pages, or even to spread knowledge more widely, it was to promote the reputation of the writer. Last, there's no possible way to see the failure to interact as anything but a snub, a statement that Wikipedians aren't worth their time.That's the way the situation appears to me. I hope to be proved wrong. I hope that the editor will request an unblock, perhaps even with an apology for misunderstanding the way things work here, enter into a dialogue with others, and go on to help improve the encyclopedia. We'll see if that happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing this, the user did request an unblock via UTRS which was procedurally declined (which seemed a little BITEy), and for some reason they removed an unblock request from their talk page, possibly in error. I agree with the above condemnations, but at the very least, an editor who insists that they're trying to contribute to the project in good faith in a variety of areas deserves to have their block appeal reviewed. Swarm ♠ 11:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible IP socks of globally locked and blocked User:Relpmek

A series of IPs who all geolocate to same region editwarring at Psychology of art led to autoconfirmed page protection yesterday. New IP IP contribs], same geographic location, now editwarring at Talk:Psychology of art to retain content added by a possible sock (User:Psarto) of globally locked and blocked User:Relpmek. Any admins want to take a look at? Heiro 22:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the IP editor, but the talk page might need to be protected later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Saw that, thank you. They used three different IPs yesterday (89.139.84.17, 85.250.150.112 and 93.173.68.163), and 4th (93.173.166.217) today, so is a good possibility they will pop up again. Maybe a rangeblock is possible?, although I don't know if those are closely grouped enough to not take out too big a range. Heiro 22:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:, or any other admin, IP has now hopped to 217.132.7.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Heiro 05:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Saw this thread in passing. I blocked 217.132.7.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for quacking on Talk:Psychology of art. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

About the time I semi protected Talk:Psychology of art. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It's possible there are workable range blocks in there somewhere. I'd prefer trying page protection first, though. It looks like Relpmek has kind of narrow interests, so it might work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring and disruptive editing from 2.232.70.45

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

An IP editor at 2.232.70.45, with a long history of blocks for edit warring, vandalism, and block evasion, is engaged in a spate of disruptive editing at the moment. I have tried to reason with the editor, and, to bring in other editors most recently active on the principal article of contention (see that article's talkpage history below).

• IP's contributions
• IP's talkpage and talkpage history
• Edit history of main article of contention (Cefalù Cathedral)
• Edit history of Cefalù Cathedral article talkpage

Eric 01:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Answer to false accusations: avoid sabotaging the discussions and responding to your work Edit history of main article of contention (Cefalù Cathedral) --2.232.70.45 (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@2.232.70.45: what was your takeaway from the fact that three days ago, an administrator warned you on your talk page that you were in danger of receiving a lengthy block for your actions in this matter? --Jprg1966 06:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jprg1966: I'm pretty sure notifications don't work with IPs. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Good to know. In any case, I hope the IP uses this opportunity to do some self-reflection for their own benefit. --Jprg1966 15:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Update: The IP editor has resumed the revert campaign: article, talkpage. Eric 18:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. Swarm ♠ 23:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by an anonymous "male"

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

Hi admin! Coming here after this suggestion: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_159#Talk:Aangan_(TV_series)

You can check out whole Talk:Aangan (TV series); the issue might have been resolved but still "his" behaviour is rude. The latest example of the behaviour is in Draft:Tabeer. Although it is just a draft, but it has been declined several times maybe due to not enough coverage; though I didn't understand why is "he" reverting my edits. His IPs were earlier 182.182.*** and now are 39.38.***. Please check out and let me know what to do. Thanks! :) M. Billoo 13:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Why are you putting scare quotes around "male" and "his"? What possible difference can the IP's gender make to your complaint? If you just want to avoid making assumptions about their gender, better to use singular "they", as I just did. It's now accepted by numerous grammarians and style books. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

There's no basis for admin action here. It appears that you have a personal dispute (not a content dispute) with this user, and that they simply want you to leave them alone. I strongly suggest you stop interacting with this user unless you have a very good reason for doing so. I don't think you need to be intervening on that particular draft. Swarm ♠ 11:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

ChiveFungi aggressive insulting attitude

Dear Misplaced Pages

I've been editing in a small way for many years, largely grammar/spelling/typos using my professional publishing skills from a life in publishing. Occasionally I write in Talk pages with suggestions, leaving it to the editors of pages to accept or reject.

I recently had cause to suggest a correction to a page in its Talk page due to personal knowledge. The page in question is Eurabia, the article attributes the creation of the name to someone in 2005, while I know as a fact that the painter Michael Bowen painted a painting in Florence in the 1980s with this title and has explained the thinking behind it to me in an email, which I quoted from. Bowen, who is now dead, was a widely traveled, non-bigoted individual who was married to an Indian woman and has a child by her, was immersed in Eastern religions, and, while living in Florence with his then Italian wife, painted Eurabia. I gave all this information in good faith, expecting it to be appreciated as yet more knowledge. Instead the author of the page aggressively told me:

'There's no need for white genocide conspiracy theory type nonsense on talk pages. Keep those thoughts to yourself. type nonsense on talk pages. Keep those thoughts to yourself. Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, you may be blocked from editing. --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't edited anything but wrote a suggestion on the talk page based on knowledge. I am not a 'white genocide conspiracy theory type' whatever that is and hadn't even heard of this particular conspiracy theory previously, it sounds to me that ChiveFungi has an agenda and no one is allowed to disturb it.

Having looked at ChiveFungi's talk page, I see a number of others have responded to his immoderate outbursts and bullying with remarks similar to mine, that his attack is unwarranted, that his attitude stinks, as also illustrated by 'Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war.'

If anyone fairly reads my comments, they will see I am not part of any conspiracy theory [I have attacked many of these over the decades myself], was not 'disruptibe editing' nor have I ever vandalised Misplaced Pages, and I will not be accused of it by this person who clearly has issues that perhaps make him unsuitable as an editor?

His insulting, belittling attitude is unjustified and if he had read and understood what I wrote he would not have been as confused as he clearly is. Perhaps he sees all edits to his little empire here as threats? If so he needs to be reminded how to behave. My faith in the accuracy of Misplaced Pages has been challenged by this as also my faith in it being a respectful community and I shall never again defend it against ignorant people. PetePassword (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-admin comment) - I have removed the ANI template from the header and placed on the accused's talkpage on behalf of filer - courtesy ping ChiveFungi Nightfury 13:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• TL;DR - Just gonna throw my 2 cents in but looking at the replies from both users personally both deserve blocking for incivilty. –Davey2010 14:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed, although I think PetePassword's incivility is the greater of the two. ChiveFungi stuck to template messages after that initial comment, whereas PetePassword has gone on to call ChiveFungi a "dickhead" , ask "What's your mental problem" , and say "I suspect his ego can't handle what it sees as criticism, a common problem among juveniles" . Marianna251TALK 14:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

Firstly, I think I was correct in my assessment that what they had posted was racist:

I have come across the term however as a descriptor of what is happening/has happened to Europe with the connivance of the liberal political class - no conspiracy, just a lot of virtue signalling liberals signing their own culture's death warrant out of stupidity and an imagined multicultural world

This is white genocide conspiracy theory. The idea that white liberals are allowing their own culture/people to die out by allowing foreigners in. It's a racist conspiracy theory. I try to give the benefit of the doubt and not call somebody's remarks racist when it seems borderline. But I don't think this was borderline.

And secondly, regarding the tone - I don't think I was being uncivil. I certainly don't tiptoe around the feelings of people who write racist rants, but I don't think I was being belligerent. Merely direct and to-the-point.

--ChiveFungi (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

AJJCornhole

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

I'm writing this article for a business founded in 2005 and I believe it has a default blacklist on the word, "Cornhole", due to the profane nature of the subject matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:AJJCornhole

Can you please assist me or my colleagues?

Thank you,

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azgoda (talk • contribs) 15:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Azgoda. In order to preserve attribution I believe the best way to approach this is for you to create the article in your sandbox and then ask an admin to move it to the proper title. Also, please read the conflict of interest info I added to your talk page. --NeilN 15:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Another Bambifan sock

Check out User:Tingtangtong. Same edit pattern, same edit summaries as the last sock, Bambi. No alerts being sent per WP:LTA/BF101. --McDoobAU93 18:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• There is a range we can consider blocking, but it's huge. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I ran the mass-rollback tool on all their edits. In looking over the LTA case, is there a traceable pattern that an edit filter could detect? Home Lander (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: or someone, can you delete User talk:Tingtangtong, I blundered with Twinkle while tagging one of the pages. Home Lander (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump

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

List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump is currently subject to discretionary sanctions. Getting a number of violations of WP:1RR by several editors. I really don't want to go to Arbitration Enforcement yet and would rather ask an uninvolved administrator to take a look, possibly administer personal warnings to those they feel necessary and perhaps an 8 to 24 hour full protect to force people to the talk page. I have deliberately not named any offending editors and I am NOT requesting any sanctions against anybody at this time, just a warning. I am prepared to go to arbitration enforcement if I have to, but I want to avoid that if possible. Safiel (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Safiel: Your edit summary reminder should do the trick. All involved editors are aware of discretionary sanctions. --NeilN 22:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, people have finally taken it to the talk page. Safiel (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

IP editor 86.87.212.214 - long-term disruptive editing, no communication.

86.87.212.214 (talk · contribs) appears to have a fixed IP number, and a history of the same pattern of exclusively unconstructive edits, going back about a year. They're sporadic, less than 40 in total, usually small changes. Many of them are unexplained removals of well-sourced material which apparently conflicts with their views about Iran. They often involve removals of mentions of Turkic, Arab, and Jewish people, eg. , , . Many are clumsy changes in the attribution of the origin of some word, food dish, etc., to their own country, eg. , , . The editor has never used an edit summary, nor participated in a talk page. They appear to be unaware of their own talk page, warnings, and a recent 24-hour block. They don't seem to be hostile or engage in edit wars; they're oblivious to the fact that essentially all of their edits have been reverted, by many different editors. There may be one or two edits that are not completly wrong. I suppose it must be assumed they're editing in good faith, however misguided, rather than vandalizing. But it seems to me they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, so much as to push crude nationalistic beliefs, and there's no hope of improvement if they won't communicate with anyone. --IamNotU (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

See Jasper2018 (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

When it rains, it pours... The "it wasn't me" defence would be easier to believe, despite the close resemblance of the earlier edits, if 86.87.212.214 was a dynamic IP from Iran, rather than a (normally fixed) IP from KPN in the Netherlands. Also, compare these edits, one from last October, and the one from yesterday: / . --IamNotU (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I do not know why this person response from their account on the IP talk page instead of here, but maybe we should be grateful. I believe they are incompetent (for linguistics reasons, and the aforementioned oblivion) for the English Misplaced Pages, and if you throw in edits like this one, yeah. Don't rightly know what to do--we could throw out an indefinite block, of course, but I'm not feeling that this morning. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

BI request

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

Repquesting Block without SPI of GHeidenberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sock of this UAA-blocked account. RBI would also help avoid opening an SPI due to the master's username violation. Dr. K. 06:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing edit war on The Third Murder

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

Hi. I would like the administrators to check the revision history of this page. The article is in an unstable situation as two IP users have been edit warring constantly for hours. I asked both of them to stop, but they didn't listen to me. Please help stabilize the article as soon as possible. Thanks. Keivan.f 07:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Promontoriumispromontorium is NOTHERE

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

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

Requesting a NOTHERE block for this user. I was collecting diffs for an AE filing but appalled by what I found. In the past week this user has made repeated polemic and diatribe comments of pages relating to American politics and transgender issues. These are both DS areas, but this behavior is unacceptable even in non-DS areas.

1. 20:54, 1 February 2018 "Instead it's just you lying biased liberals tossing out every libelous attack you could find from hack journalists who know they can get away with lies and hate because they have people like you turning their lies into "truth" by simply silencing all opposition. This whole page is a joke. You're disgusting people with no respect for journalism, accuracy, or objectivity. You've smeared more feces on this page than San Franciscans did their own park to stop minorities from sharing their experiences."
2. 21:00, 1 February 2018 " Proving the San Franciscans were the violent animals, throwing feces and spitting on cops even when nobody else was around. Left all that out because you're liars and hacks."
3. 05:55, 6 February 2018 " However since I know I can't avail you biased leftist SJWs from controlling the "truth". I'll beat you at your own game. Sex and gender are..."
4. 06:00, 6 February 2018 "Since gender is psychological not biological, it's a pointless endeavor, but the psychotically biased left, who include these editors will defend to their death manufactured, clearly unsupported, unscientific, 1984esque imaginary terminology such as this to back a narrative for political ends. By calling it what it actually is, scientific confirmation of sex, it undermines their lies. And lying is the point. So this article will stand until their narrative changes, not facts. Which undeniably are on the side of renaming or deleting this. "
5. 06:49, 6 February 2018 "But then you lying leftist SJW crusaders use this lie as defense to keep it up, as people can't cite enough sources to call it something else. Something invented whole cloth for sociopolitical reasons, of course there isn't a rich history to reference too."
6. 06:54, 6 February 2018 "It is a whole cloth liberal arts sociopolitical tactic to create terminology in order to be able to attack it"

I see little to no contributions outside of article talk pages. This type of commentary is nothing new either (comment about Caitlyn Jenner and other gems ).

EvergreenFir (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

PAKHIGHWAY block review

(I'll notify involved editors in a moment) I just blocked PAKHIGHWAY (talk · contribs). This user was under a topic ban as a result of this discussion. In the section earlier on this noticeboard, "Mass G8 deletion of pages created by an IP", there was some concern the user was editing via an IP address, though this was not involved in my discussion to block. In my opinion and apparently that of others, PAKHIGHWAY has been pushing right up against the edge of the topic ban in a number of edits. What concerned me this morning was this edit, removing "Disputed with India" which seems an unambiguous violation, and then these edits to a talk page on an article about India. It's hard to reconcile these with the user's topic ban. Combine those edits with the existing behaviour and I felt it most appropriate to place a six month block. I am unclear as to whether the topic ban should restart once the block expires, but (if the block stands), we'll need to determine this. I suggest the topic ban be restarted once the block expires. So... is this block appropriate? If so, should the topic ban restart once the block expires? --Yamla (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Definitely needed some sort of block, although six months may be a big leap. I think the topic ban should be reset after each block. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with Yamla a block was absolutely in order as a clear and present breach of topic ban (and which on top of the myriad of other similar edits could in no way be accidental). However: six months could appear excessive. Don't topic-ban violations usually begin with a month block and increment at the same rate? Mind you, arguably, that's also the discretion we pay our admin corp for—and this editor's been pushing the same crap since the beginning of the year (three blocks already, since 1 Jan, for the same thing?!). >SerialNumber54129 13:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• I would argue for a block of one month.And T-Ban resets with each block.~ Winged Blades 13:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • If the consensus is to shorten the block to one month, I'm quite happy to do so. I'll leave the discussion open for a while yet, of course. --Yamla (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• I guess I can see the rationale for 6 months (the two blocks this year were relatively shorter than desired). But yes, reduce to 1 month seems to be more within the process. Alex Shih (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yamla, more of a procedural question than anything, but is this block intended as an AE action? I ask since I believe the TBAN was a discretionary sanction and was logged at WP:AELOG/2018. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Yamla: fix ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll be happy to log it there (thanks for reminding me), though I think I'll hold off until this discussion runs its course. Looks like I'll be shortening it to a month which is a meaningful difference. --Yamla (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• I thought the block was reasonable, this looked to me like this was one of (a) a breaching experiment; (b) a complete failure to get it, or (c) a failure to accept the restriction. The appeal appears to rule out (b). Guy (Help!) 14:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Given his previous behaviour, blocks, and all the warnings; I think 45 days would be the best call. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Or maybe 38 days, 17 hours, 23 minutes and 9 seconds...~ Winged Blades 18:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Right. The general consensus appears to be that 6 months is too long, but a 1 month block seems justified, followed by restarting the one year topic ban. I will now go and modify the block, logging my action to WP:AELOG/2018. --Yamla (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) A block was definitely warranted, to remind Pakhighway of the need to stay away from the area of their topic ban. But given the minor character of the transgression, and the fact that he is productive in an area where there is a dearth of experienced editors, I think a block of more than a couple of days is going to bring the encyclopedia more harm than good. A week might be too much, and a month is excessive. – Uanfala (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• That is up to them. It is not uncommon for a disruptive but productive contributor to be sanctioned. They know what they need to do. - Sitush (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• The block was already shortened, so the point is moot, but I'll just state for the record that I don't think 6 months was excessive in this context. Let's recap, for the anyone who doesn't fully appreciate the situation. This is an editor who is willingly and persistently attempting to POV-push, in spite of numerous sanctions, in an area already under discretionary sanctions for this exact reason. If they were supporting a product instead of a country, they would have already been indeffed as a spammer. They were already in indef territory before the topic ban. But they were given a topic ban, and then they talked their way into getting their topic ban reduced in scope, then they immediately used that leniency to continue the problematic POV editing which they were topic banned for. I blocked them for this, and their block appeal showed no inkling whatsoever of them understanding the issue. Then they resort to the same behavior again, get blocked, and yet again people are calling for leniency. It doesn't matter if a user can edit productively if they choose not to. In my opinion, cutting five months off the original block was yet another unjustified and undeserved act of exceptional lenience. It's exceedingly clear at this point that this user is either unable or unwilling to edit responsibly. In my opinion, this user is well out of WP:ROPE, and the next block should, without question, be indefinite. Swarm ♠ 23:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Saiph121: Take 5

Saiph121 either cannot understand or will not accept consensus. They have been given plenty of rope. If rope were corn flakes, they'd be Kellogg's. (See their talk page.)

Here is their last trip to AN/I. This is them not hearing that discussion. This is another final warning, from JzG. This and this are Saiph121 making it clear they did not understand or chose not to follow that warning (for which JzG blocked them again).

Now we have this. Saiph121 is again re-adding a non-notable award contrary to the repeatedly established consensus. They challenged that consensus at DRN, where it was found to be a non-controversial one-against-many. They edited in defiance of that consensus and were blocked for it. That brought them back here with the warning and block discussed above.

That new diff also has them re-adding a category which was removed after similar extensive discussion on the same talk page, a trip to DRN, a trip here and a couple of blocks.

Discussion does not work. They either do not understand key portions of the discussions, do not understand that consensus is our basic dispute resolution process or choose not to follow the consensus.

Warnings do not work. Their (extensive) talk page is littered with ignored requests for discussion and warnings.

Short blocks do not work. They have returned from three blocks in a month and a half with no apparent recognition that there is a problem.

I think a longer term block and/or a 1RR restriction is needed. - SummerPhD 13:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

First, I will point out that the dispute resolution noticeboard is a purely voluntary service for the resolution of content disputes, but that User:Saiph121 was previously using it vexatiously, apparently in order to avoid consensus. The fact that their trips to DRN were dismissed should not be used as evidence that they were wrong on the content. However, second, I completely agree with User:SummerPhDv2.0 that this is a case of tendentious editing. I don't see that longer blocks are the answer, because by now the question is whether to give an indefinite block for competence or as not here to collaborate or to fashion a restriction. I propose a Topic-Ban on all versions of Beauty and the Beast, broadly defined, and on film-related topics for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not mean to imply that the DRN results are indicative of the content questions, only that they clearly show that Saiph121 is not recognizing when consensuses exist and that they are binding so long as they remain.

I do not think that a TBAN on Beauty and the Beast is sufficient. Saiph121 has a recurring pattern, discussed at Talk:Culture_of_the_United_Kingdom#Extensive_and_growing_example_farm. They add content and, when reverted, repeatedly restore the content (often while logged out). They do not respond to discussion requests, responding only once a consensus is established and enacted (a process currently underway on that same talk page). A topic ban would apparently need to cover all film related articles (broadly construed). While I think the broader range of articles is necessary, I think a 1RR on such articles will quickly get us to the point where they either "get it" or end up blocked. - SummerPhD 14:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Clearly SummerPhDv2.0's actions against me are truly a case of witch-hunting despite all the explanations that the awards that he stated are "non-notable" are truly false as these are linked which is being called "bluelinked articles" that really exist and this topic ban being issued with a threat against me is considered a violation of my freedom to edit a topic and yet all of this threats of long bans and topic ban restriction is a form of persecution in which my intent was stating on the truth. Saiph121 (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

This is bizarre. I took less than 5 minutes to review the discussion and I can see that this specific point has been explained to you over and over again. There's a clear local consensus that only notable awards should be included, and that the organization that gives the award being notable and having its own article does not make the award itself worthy of inclusion. You've ignored everything everyone said to you, you've ignored warnings, and you've ignored blocks. I'm blocking indef, and would not support an unblock without strict editing restrictions. Swarm ♠ 23:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

William Foster Nye

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

There was a speedy deletion notice which I contested. I took the article from an 85.7% Earwig down to a 2% earwig. It was deleteed (can't recover who did it) anyway as a copyuright violation. SNAFU. There was no copyright violation. Nobody was "fooling Earwig", as you alleged. This was a contested deletion which should have been WP:PRODd IT. Deletionn violated WP:Before. There was a 2% chance of a ccopyyright violation per Earwig. <There was no copy vio and no close paraphrasing. You deleted based on an alleged copyright violation. The expansive, new and novel Procrustean approach is clearly outside of policy. WP:Before violated. Article could have been improved and expanded. The mere coincidence of proper and trade names doesn't make this a copy vio. I would also note that User:Fram left a notice at here at User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 's talk page, and he is currently blocked from editing. Talk about a self fulfilling prophecy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The page was nominated (not by me) for deletion as a copyvio (an old one, the RAN copyright investigation has been ongoing slowly for years). 7&6 contested the deletion and edited the article, but the end result wsa enough to fool Earwig's tool, but not enough to actually get rid of the copyvio. I deleted the article and left a note at RANs talk page, with two long examples of such remaining copyvios. 7&6 seems to think that if Earwig's tool is happy, no copyvio is possible and the article may not be speedy deleted. That's not how it works, and I hope they haven't done too many other similar copyvio "cleanups" as that would mean a lot of potentially problematic content. Fram (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I am with Fram on this one. Trivially rewording an article so that automated tools don't spot the copyvio doesn't make it not a copyvio. Speedy deletion was the right move. The subject may or may not be notable and if it is, you're very welcome to write an article about it; don't make it a close paraphrase of a source. GoldenRing (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @7&6=thirteen (can't ping, sorry) This discussion is all over the place! Not only RAN's talk, but Fram's talk, Oshwah's talk MelanieN's talk. >SerialNumber54129 13:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Before 7&6=thirteen began working on the article the content was a verbatim copyvio. Tiderolls 14:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC) The post to which I was responding has been removed. Tiderolls 16:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• The earwig tool is great in some circumstances or as a rough guide. Spotting large completely lifted chunks of copyvio text is one area where it excels. Spotting copyvio text that has had a word or two changed but is substantially the same overall is not. Changing the occasional word does not necessarily make it not a copyvio per ENWP's rules, there is paraphrasing, close paraphrasing, and there is switching a word in the middle of a sentence to bring earwigs % down. From looking at the example's on RAN's page left by Fram, I am of the opinion this certainly (albeit in good faith by thirteen) falls in the latter category. Editors should not place high value in earwigs results. Its a good indicator. Its not infallible.

What I would suggest is that given RAN has shown no interest in fixing his extensive copyvio problems over the years is that there should be no requirement of any other editor in notifying him if they nominate anything of his mess for deletion due to copyright issues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Your personal attackS on User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is just an irrelevant Red herring and Argumentum ad hominem, and Poisoning the well. Falacy. The article was fixed, and you want to kill it because you don't like the creator. There is no copyright violation NOW. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes there isn't one now because the article was deleted. As has been pointed out, merely changing a word or two does not make it not a copyvio per ENWP's rules. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're only 1/2 right: The fact that the user above you used an ad hominem argument doesn't mean the article was fixed. Actually, the article was not fixed, as noted by several admins above. I have looked at the deleted text, and I agree with their assessment; the article was still functionally a copyright violation, and needed to go, even after the fixes. If you would like to start over, from scratch, and create a whole new article with completely different text that you write all by yourself with your own writing that isn't copied or closely paraphrased from anywhere, you're quite free to, and no one will stop you. But the now deleted article should stay deleted, as there is nothing in the edit history worth saving, including YOUR edits. --Jayron32 16:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

There was not a change in a "mere word or two," Take a look at the diffs. I would put them here for the world to see, but you deleted the article and I don't have access. You don't want full disiclosure or fair comparison. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC) 16:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The woeful and insufficient procdural undepinnings of this deletion are admitted above by User:Fram: "

The page was nominated (not by me) for deletion as a copyvio (an old one, the RAN copyright investigation has been ongoing slowly for years). 7&6 contested the deletion and edited the article, but the end result wsa enough to fool Earwig's tool, but not enough to actually get rid of the copyvio. I deleted the article and left a note at RANs talk page," Everything I said above is true and ADMITTED! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried taking this to WP:DELREV yet by any chance, which is the venue to dispute a speedy deletion? RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. Will do. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• DRV can handle the question of whether to undelete this particular file (preview: DRV is not going to overturn), and I'll comment there. But I've reopened this thread, and don't think it should be closed open we get an idea of the scope of the problem, and until Thirteen acknowledges he understands this: User:7&6=thirteen, you need to listen to what a whole bunch of people are telling you here. Incrementally changing someone's copyrighted work until there is no longer an Earwig match is still a copyright violation. You can't do that live in an article, you can't do that in a sandbox, you can't do it in draft space, and you can't do that in a file on your computer. That is not writing an article, that is modifying someone else's article. It is always a copyright violation. If Earwig came back 0% match after you did that, it's a copyright violation. Fram did the right thing here. I'm concerned at the deep, fundamental misunderstanding if what copyvio means. How many articles have you used this technique on? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not initially write this article. I totally rewrote it. I will take this up with WP:DELREV, as there is precious little of the original article that was untouched. This was not "incremental" change; it was a wholesale rewrite.

I would have gotten more sources and rewritten it further, but this article was getting a "fast trial," and a deletion; not to be confused with a constitutionally sound Speedy trial. So the rewrite went bye-bye because of the preemptive first strike. You will get no apology from me as all I did was improve the article only to have it derailed without a modicum of due process or respect for the rules. Apparently the rules don't matter to you? I hope that is not what you meant. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, in cases like this the rules are that it gets deleted very quickly. A number of the admins above can *see* the deleted content and see its a violation by our policies. From the examples on RAN's talkpage *I* can see its a violation of our copyvio policy. In situations like this it is almost without exception speedily deleted - or if it has been re-written, revision deleted. Your reworked version was not sufficiently different to be kept as a non-copyvio. This is not a huge issue, but you need to understand there are legal implications which mean in situations like this action is taken quickly unless it can be demonstrated sufficiently that a significant rewrite has occurred. That did not happen. The problem with making incremental or minor changes that lower the earwig % is that you are not writing your own work, you are modifying someone else's work, which is still ultimately a copyvio by our policies. It needs to be re-written, not modified to comply with our rules. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Rewording can and does make copyrighted text non-copyrighted. So I think the only thing that needs to be done is for an uninvolved admin to take a look at the before & after on that page and decide if the edits by 7&6 were enough of a change. This requires some judgement, but there's no need to go around arguing. We're going to have to trust the admin who does this, either way, as it is currently not visible to the rest of us. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

OKay, after seeing some of the examples given at RAN's talkpage (here), I agree that it was still a copyvio. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Also Jayron already noted they looked at the deleted content and I trust their judgement on this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand there are legal implications. Indeed, I venture to guess that I am professionally trained better than you in that regard, but I digress.

But the extent of copyright and WP:Copyvios and WP:Close paraphrasing is not what you imagine. To be sure, the latter is an amorphous standard, which like Whizzer White said about pornography, "I know it when I see it." You have confabulated both a violation and a new standard. When Earwig is 0%, that is by any objective standard a good indication that there isn't a problem. I understand that you were all acting inn good faith, but you were wrong. So I also understand that you claim you are implementing rules, but I do not understand that you were factually right or procedurally correct. This was a deletion that happened in minutes, even as the article was being (and had largely been) rewritten. You quickly cut off my ongoing editing. And while you say it should not have been "incrementally rewritten", the hurried deletion made a larger rewrite impossible. QED. Heads I win; tails you lose. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Well everyone above disagrees with you, so I suggest the more likely explanation is you're wrong. If you take this to DRV I would expect to be disappointed. Its clear you don't understand the problem, so someone uninvolved might as well close this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you don't understand the concept of "rush to judgment" and 'o'er hasty deletion.' Or WP: Before You choose to disregard the ongoing progress in rewriting the article. Or the ignored contested deletion (which is admitted). that someone chose to leave a notice on a blocked user page (which made correction by him impossible) – which should have made it a fait accomplit but for my happening on that edit – is also ignored. This would have been fixed long ago if you hadn't deleted the article. There were less drastic and destructive ways to have handled it. We will have to agree to disagree as to your analysis or lack thereof. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, since you can't tell the difference between two editors (hint, I didnt delete anything) and you appear to be ignoring the consensus above, I think we are done. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. User:Only in death you did not delete anything. I was not directing my comments about you. If you took it that way, I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

Rather, I was addressing the essentially flawed process and lack of due process. And a needless controversy that could have been avoided with a little patience. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• The only good thing about a copyright violation is you don't need a copy of the deleted article to use as a reference to write the new article; you can just use the original article it was stolen from. If you'd like to know the web address RAN took this text from, it was here. In fact, if you want all of the references, I can look at the deleted article and provide the references so you can write a new article from scratch. That is the only way this is going to work; I can guarantee the deleted article is not going to be undeleted at DRV. But what you were doing before the article was deleted was not fixing a copyright problem; it was obscuring a copyright problem. Admins can look at your contribs on the deleted article; there aren't that many to look at. But, for example, changing this:

In 1840 at 16 years old, he left his family’s Cape Cod. He became apprentice to a master carpenter in New Bedford, Massachusetts. He left New Bedford to build pipe organs in Boston, took to sea as a ship's carpenter, he worked at an ice house in Calcutta and participated in the California Gold Rush of 1849. He returned to New Bedford to start an oil and kerosene business.

to this:

Nye was born in 1824. At the age of 16 years, he left his family’s Cape Cod to become an apprentice to a master carpenter in New Bedford, Massachusetts. Upon completing his apprenticeship, he went to Boston and began building pipe organs. Thereafter he took became a ship's carpenter. During his voyages, he worked at an ice house in Calcutta and participated in the California Gold Rush of 1849. Returning to New Bedford, he started an oil and kerosene business.

is not "fixing copyright problems". --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

So I caN't get access to the final deleted iteration. Retrench and denny. Thank you. See you at WP:REVDEL. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Gagibgd vs Csknowitall and No such user at Serbia men's national water polo team

Serbia men's national water polo team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Water polo at the Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) have been subject of a slow-motion (and not so slow recently) edit war, chiefly by Gagibgd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), since at least 2013. Here is his edit history on the article. Gagibgd persistently tries to include the records of Yugoslavia men's national water polo team, established in 1936, as an achievement of the Serbian team, without offering a single reference (the Serbian article is completely unreferenced). I tried to engage him at Talk:Serbia men's national water polo team#SFR Yugoslavian results, and Csknowitall at Talk:Water polo at the Summer Olympics to little avail. Only today he said anything on any talk page (mine is hardly the right place), citing the same document that I used to refute his claims. Anyway: this is admittedly a content dispute, but it can hardly be solved if he practically refuses to discuss the issue (or perhaps his English is insufficient to communicate): he has 0 (zero) contributions to Talk: namespace, and the only ones to User talk are in Serbian . I'm at loss what to suggest... No such user (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Gagibgd turning up to revert this section is not a promising sign. @Gagibgd: Don't do that again. GoldenRing (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, @Gagibgd: blanked his own talk page now as well, in hopes that admins won't see the discussions. Csknowitall (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Csknowitall: or we assume that they blanked it because WP:BLANKING says...they can? Be mindful: They may well have blanked this because of inexperience. It was, after all, their first edit to WP space ever, in five years  :) >SerialNumber54129 15:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Although I agree that immediately filing a clearly retributory ANI isn't the best tactic either. (Now merged with this thread) >SerialNumber54129 15:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Yes of course he can, no problem, but seeing his very recent edit wars and also deleting this post about him once, made me think he blanked his own talk page for the same reasons, that he don't want to get into trouble. Csknowitall (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Csknowitall: Sorry, didn't know that my page is relevant to this issue. There is nothing to hide, No such user left me a note where he disagrees with my edits, and that's it. Gagibgd (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

No such user and Csknowitall constantly keep reverting edits about Serbia men's national water polo team and their results and medal tables based on no evidence. Serbia as a country, is widely considered as inheritor of Yugoslavia. This also counts for sports results. When Yugoslavia was breaking apart in 1992, all countries except Serbia and Montenegro requested to exit, and start from the beginning. Serbia and Montenegro (at that time known as FR Yugoslavia) was kept in SFR Yugoslavia, and was eventually renamed to FR Yugoslavia. FR Yugoslavia got legal continuity of SFR Yugoslavia, and that is a known fact. Even FINA, which is a main water polo organization in the world agrees with this, and here is evidence for that claim https://www.fina.org/sites/default/files/final_histofina_wp_2016_0.pdf. In football for example. FIFA considers Serbia as Yugoslavia inheritor, you can see that on the page Serbia national football team. So, how can one country be a successor of the other in some sports, or some competitions, and in some other not? That is just absurd.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagibgd (talk • contribs)

@Gagibgd: Again, you drag different federations into this. FIFA has nothing to do with water polo, so what they do with their own sport is up to them, and what FINA does is also up to them. You ask why one country can be successor in some sports, and in others not, well it's simple, it's up to the individual governing body on how they officially count medals and results. Some might give the medals to Serbia, and some don't, that's just the way it is. I also don't see why you drag UN into this, what exactly do they have to do with how sport federations count medals? Csknowitall (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gagibgd: All I'm asking is that you start discussing, preferably at Talk:Serbia men's national water polo team. This page is not the place for debating the water polo issues, but for getting administrators' attention; feel free to copy the above text there and I will be happy to address it. When there is a dispute, we're supposed to follow Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, which boldly includes "Discuss with the other party" as a step. We might not reach an agreement, but then there are other steps. (And plase sign using four tildes, ~~~~) No such user (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

User Bandar1998 - persistent disruptive editing

SPA Bandar1998 (talk · contribs) continues to ignore verifiability requirements, despite warnings. Batternut (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The user has been notified of this discussion. Batternut (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Only yesterday an IP was blocked for pretty much the same problem. Here, the most recent warnings are from December, and the problem continues: edits are unexplained and unverified, and there is no response from User:Bandar1998. I will block; if they are interested in editing Misplaced Pages, they can explain on their talk page what they intend to do about it. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch

Lorstaking opened an SPI - Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ApostleVonColorado - alleging that Ms Sarah Welch (MSW) and others were socks of the long-silent ApostleVonColorado (AVC). AVC was topic banned in 2012; MSW commenced editing in 2013 after that ban had expired. A great deal of evidence has been presented at this investigation. As a patrolling admin, having assessed this situation as best I could I eventually concluded that:

• Ms Sarah Welch, Lisa.davis and Mark.muesse are all the same person and as a result Lisa.davis and Mark.muesse were indef blocked and tagged as socks of Ms Sarah Welch (both have long since ceased editing.)
• Ms Sarah Welch was then blocked for one week “pending further investigation of the relationship between that account and AVC".

Having reached that conclusion various other editors weighed in and as a result the issue is posted here for wider community input. Why? In a nutshell:

• "There's no way AVC would be entitled to a clean start."
• MSW is not without her critics but is also an editor who has made a significant contribution, including a claimed 59 DYKs and 12 GAs.
• The behavioural evidence of AVC and MSW being the same person is considerable (although not perhaps 100% certain).
• Assuming them to be one and the same, to quote Lorstaking: "It's a deliberate violation of policy... MSW has abused multiple accounts to make significant edits on same articles for years. MSW had to stick to AVC. MSW was aware that editing as AVC would take no time to face another topic ban or indef block on AVC account. That's why MSW used new accounts to avoid scrutiny and engage in same disruption as AVC." In other words, policy suggests that MSW should receive an indef block and the individual be allowed to start editing again as AVC.
• Without wishing to trivialise the problem in any way, such an outcome may be considered harsh by some, even taking a dim view of some of MSW’s more controversial actions e.g. continuing to edit war with one or more editors that AVC also disagreed with.
• Some contributing editors at SPI suggested that, given the unusual nature of the case, that a discussion be opened here for wider input.

I will unblock Ms Sarah Welch to allow further comment to be made here by that editor. Ben MacDui 18:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just to address the clean start bit first: Clean Starts are able to be utilized by editors who have been problematic as long as they have recognized the issues and are not going to repeat them, and as long as the original account is not used. So I disagree with some of the comments that AVC was not entitled to a clean start. Everyone is entitled to a clean start when sanctions expire. Permission is not required. With the expectation under any new username that previous behavior is not repeated. As the other user's were created after the ban expired, and AVC never edited again, utilizing a clean start - ok, continuing to edit problematically in areas they were previously topic banned from - not ok. Is there evidence they have been problematic in the same topic area as their previous username? Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think that ANI is a good venue to discuss this. It could be village pump where we could ask changes to sock puppetry policy but right now as per WP:SOCK, the indef block is only solution to this problem. Topic banned editors are not allowed to WP:CLEANSTART unless they have declared the account or they are editing the totally different article, but Ms Sarah Welch was violating this clean start since their first edit. As evidenced on SPI, a few things are clear here:-

1. Ms Sarah Welch (MSW) created multiple accounts and was topic banned from all Caste articles for 6 months on ApostleVonColorado account on WP:ANI after filing a spurious complaint against Fowler&Fowler, and it was obvious that the user would be subject to heavy scrutiny and the account would be topic banned again or indefinitely blocked given the continued problems with editing on same subject and continued WP:BATTLE mentality with same users (Fowler&Fowler in particular).
2. WP:SOCK: creating new account "to avoid detection" is a violation of sock puppetry.
3. MSW filed a spurious retaliatory SPI against me, same thing that socks usually do when they realize that they are going to get blocked. And also wikihounded my edits.
4. Given the many problems with the editing (edit warring, bludgeoning, misrepresentation of sources, etc.) of MSW as detailed by other editor, the indef block for sock puppetry seems clearly alright even though sock puppetry is not about good or bad edits, but only the abuse of multiple accounts which is highly evident here.

I am sure that we are not going to change policy on sock puppetry and unblock many accounts that have engaged in similar sock puppetry. Lorstaking (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support block I believe this is a violation of WP:CLEANSTART- over at the SPI, Lorstaking has presented evidence showing how MSW has continued AVC's feud against User:Fowler&fowler. The intent of WP:CLEANSTART is basically that "editors who change accounts under the terms of fresh start are seeking exactly that, a fresh start...avoids association with disputes or poor behaviors that you might have been involved with under your former account". Given that MSW is editing in exactly the same area their old account got topic banned from and are targeting the same editors, this isn't a clean start. We're also forgetting the two other socks here- Lisa.davis and Mark.muesse who were editing at the same time as MSW. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: what exactly is the purpose of this discussion? I see here a proposal to block them, with the following rationale:

"Given the many problems with the editing (edit warring, bludgeoning, misrepresentation of sources, etc.) of MSW as detailed by other editor , the indef block for sock puppetry seems clearly alright even though sock puppetry is not about good or bad edits, but only the abuse of multiple accounts which is highly evident here."

With other words: 'block the account for sock-puppetry, because there are "many problems with the editing (edit warring, bludgeoning, misrepresentation of sources, etc.)". That's two different things: either you block someone because of sock-puppetry, or beacuse of problematic editing. But you don't block soemeone for sock-puppetry, because you are of the opinion that their editing is problematic. If you want to block someone for problematic editing (apart from sock-puppetry), then you have to discuss this alleged problematic editing, and make clear why you think their editing is problematic. And regarding this allegation of problematic editing: MSW has made significant and valuable contributions to the project. If they've been topic-banned one time before, with another account, but never been blocked with their present account, then it seems to me that they've learned, and improved their behavior. Don't mix up arfguments, and provide sound arguments for the allegation of problematic editing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

PS: regarding "Lorstaking has presented evidence showing how MSW has continued AVC's feud against User:Fowler&fowler", such an allegation needs more than the selected examples given by Lorstaking. Don't forget that there are more experienced editors on India-related articles, some of whom think highly of her, and didn't have the kind of problems with her Lorstaking is referring to. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Um, no, it doesn't matter who presents the diffs, but rather the content of the diffs, which I judge, as a completely involved editor in the India caste article sphere to show MSW continuing with AVC's agenda against Fowler&fowler, against the spirit of WP:CLEANSTART. More diffs are available on the SPI, but this isn't a point to be disputed. However, the point of whether MSW is a constructive editor, constructive enough that the past SOCKING can be ignored is, hence why I suggested taking this to AN. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Ben MacDui's suggestion seems to be that "policy suggests that MSW should receive an indef block and the individual be allowed to start editing again as AVC." That's different from blocking AVC/MSW altogether indef. There have been cases of abuse which were much more serious, and where nevertheless the editor in question did get a second chance. MSW is a valuable editor, I think; and I think I can speak with some authority, given my contributions to the project and the topic-area. So, openness about the accounts, block of all of them but one, and a severe warning should suffice. Though, personally, an explanation would also be welcome, and help to restore faith and trust. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This is a tricky case. I suggest a bit of WP:IAR might be needed. You're dealing with a long term, and overall valuable, albeit controversial, contributor. Policy probably demands indef, although you express (minor) doubt about the AVC connection. Perhaps a long block, but not indef, with it being quite clear that any further violation of policy would result in indef? That way you may keep a valuable contributor around, with no more policy violation. If you're right about the SPI thing, an indef block would probably just result in another account. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Block Noone actually doublechecks MSW's extensive edits. MSW doesn't even understand that Brahman can be an alternative spelling of Brahmin. See here. When her own sources talk about "brahmans", brahmans refers to human beings. She doesn't understand any of this. I really question her WP:COMPETENCE. And with all due respect to my good friend Joshua Jonathan, English is not his first language and he doesn't doublecheck MSW's edits.VictoriaGrayson 22:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• This is actually a good point. I've tried to check some in the past and found it virtually impossible to come to the same paraphrase etc but I've mostly assumed that MSW has a better grasp of the technical terms than me (even when I have been very dubious, so perhaps AGF'ing too far). Plus I really could do without getting into a really long wrangling match of the type that Fowler&fowler has routinely had to suffer. - Sitush (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Just to say that that I have inter-acted with MSW a fair deal in recent months, on Indian art and architecture articles - Hindu temples mostly - I think she has only fairly recently moved to edit in that area. She is certainly a useful editor there, partly because she is good at clearing the thickets of dubious unreferenced or poorly referenced material that has accumulated on many temple articles. We have had our differences for sure, but she is a net positive. Without having often directly checked her use of sources (I usually have sources covering the same ground, but not always the same ones), I'd say her use of them is generally good, and neutral. She is certainly very insistent on referencing. If there are consistent problems here, it should be possible to produce examples. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for admitting you don't doublecheck her edits. In addition to the example I already provided, here is an example of her confusing a fictional discourse of the Buddha with actual history. Here is a rare admission that she confused a statement of a scholar with being a quote from the Bhagavad Gita. VictoriaGrayson 01:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I checked the link you gave; MSW made a propsal there for a textual change, including a reference. This was in response to your previous response, which said "You state that "dwells in all things and in whom all things dwell" is a direct quote of Krishna. This is false." What kind of wrongdoing do you see there, except for disagreeing with you? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

In her article edit, she said "dwells in all things and in whom all things dwell" was a quote from the Bhagavad Gita. The source didn't say anything like this. This is about WP:COMPETENCE.VictoriaGrayson 07:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm the administrator who imposed the topic ban in 2012. I'm not hugely familiar with the history since then, but it seems the editing patterns which led to said topic ban haven't recurred. The block is reasonable, and should be allowed to run its course. After that there are no active sanctions, which is the, but any future sanction discussions should be properly cognizant of both this episode and what happened in 2012. There's enough potential upside and scrutiny that it'll be easy to reblock/reban as necessary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, scrutiny doesn't work with this editor. As documented by others, she doesn't listen to anyone. And again, noone actually checks the extensive edits she makes.VictoriaGrayson 02:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking in relative terms to 2012. If those more familiar with current history disagree, I wouldn't stand in the way of anything. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• My (limited) experience with Ms Sarah Welch is similar to that of Sitush. I'm not aware of the technicalities of wikipolicy here, but I agree with the principle that the meting out of sanctions on prolific contributors should be exercised with lenience. In this case however, I don't think that such favour should be extended without first undertaking a very careful and detailed examination of a sample of their content contributions. – Uanfala (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I did check some of her sources at Advaita Vedanta; although I think she has a certain pro-AV bias, the sources were accessible, and we could argue about various matters, and reach greements. As I said before, a block for disruptive editing needs a more thorough argumentation than a limited couple of examples from a total of 28.000 or so edits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Assuming that AVC has opened all these accounts after the expiration of their topic ban, the issues are whether AVC was entitled to a WP:CLEANSTART and whether MSW has continued the same kind of disruptive behaviour as AVC. Neither of these is clear to me. Bbb23 has stated that AVC was not entitled to a clean start. However, WP:CLEANSTART states, Any user in good standing who has no unexpired sanctions, and who is not being or about to be formally discussed for their conduct, may have a clean start. This seems to suggest that a CLEANSTART was permitted under the timeframe we are dealing with. Regarding the continuation of disruptive behaviour, I don't see that either. MSW has done considerable good work, winning the admiration of many of us, and has accumulated plenty of successful GA nominations. Granted that she clashed with Fowler&fowler, particularly at the cow-protection and cow-slaughter articles. That clash was quite unavoidable given their respective positions. I didn't see any of them particularly "picking a fight" for no reason. Vanamonde93 has mediated that discussion and I participated for part of it. None of us thought that there was disruptive behaviour from either side. So, frankly, I don't see a case for any action. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Harassing message

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

There is currently a WP:SOCK investigation on TheIrshKicker40 which is kind of hanging at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCorageone1. An article the master sock was working on a lot just got deleted Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling (2nd nomination) and we have nominated this users newest article Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adam Pacitti. After this, I received this message on my talk page . I would like to request admin action against this user and my page history edited to remove these comments from visibility. Thanks! - Galatz 19:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

He says he's leaving Misplaced Pages. A block would help affirm that decision. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd also think it's worth checking out JMichael22 too as there is significant overlap. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

This also has some crossover and similar tone to many Dwdpuma socks and Martimc123. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Chrissymad has left an ‘only warning’ on TheIrshKicker40 talk page and I have revdel the offending edit. No comment on the SPI. They are apparently quitting so we may hear no more from them. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Photoshopped image of Steve Jobs by blocked user on main page

See Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors - in reference to File:Steve Jobs Uppershot 2010-CROP2.jpg which is photoshopped from File:Steve Jobs Headshot 2010-CROP.jpg by the blocked User:FijiForums as is on OTD right now. Chris857 (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit - looks like it just got removed from the main page. Carry on. Chris857 (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Actually for future reference, how did an obviously doctored picture make it to the main page? I understand OTD is only looked at shortly in advance of its appearance, and that if you are unfamiliar with what Steve Jobs looks like, the nose issue would not necessarily be apparent at that time. But how did the picture get into consideration in the first place? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

So, I cant find where the picture was proposed to be used. I cant find it was used on Steve Jobs article at all (the natural place you would expect to get a picture of Steve Jobs for the main page) the anniversaries for year 1997 actually list him 'returning' to Apple in August not February - while Apple bought Next (Jobs company at the time) in February bringing him back as an advisor to the CEO for Apple (sources indicate 7th Feb but oddly article says 9th), that wasn't a significant date whereas his interim CEO/actual CEO in July/August are (to anyone who knows anything about Apple history) when the Jobs era kicked off. And yet I cant find any discussion or anything regarding this addition for this particular day on the less-than-intuitive OTD pages, and certainly nothing regarding the picture. Which at this point looks like some sort of thinly veiled racial attack. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• The picture was added here by @Howcheng: who does a yeoman's effort keeping OTD running smoothly. I'm quite certain it was an honest mistake on his part. --Jayron32 12:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry I may have not been clear enough, I understand how OTD is reviewed and updated prior to being posted with Howcheng doing the lion's share of the work, I am more concerned with how an OTD item gets into the position where its posted with a problematic picture (I am assuming Howcheng just picked one from commons here - and commons is at fault for not policing its pics properly as usual) with what appears to be zero discussion in advance. I cant even pin down a discussion as to why Jobs is listed in Feb when anniversaries 1997 (imo) correctly lists the notable date (for Jobs) as August when he became CEO (although it does list the Next takeover in feb) If its the case that essentially no discussion is needed for a process that puts content on the front page - that's a problem in itself as main page content should require a bit more vetting than that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:RPP backlog and errors

Please see and fix, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Malhação2017 (talk · contribs) made a malformed request. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

User:KolbertBot is malfunctioning

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

Hello, this user/bot is reversing our (The OU Students Association's) changes meaning the page is incorrect. Please can you investigate?

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:KolbertBot

https://en.wikipedia.org/Open_University_Students_Association — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oustudents-media (talk • contribs) 11:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Oustudents-media: The bot merely replaced a http link by a https version (for security reasons) and worked properly. Your additions were removed by Viewmont Viking for an apparent conflict of interest and possible copyright issues. Also, your user name conflicts with policy, since it suggests shared use and may be construed as promotional. Kleuske (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for admin-eyes

Wanted to request someone to keep a short-term watch on User talk:Lalat14, who has inserted copyvio stuff across multiple articles. I've warned them, but they've not acknowledged any of the warnings, despite editing post my first few warning messages. I don't know if a block is feasible to ensure further disruption doesn't happen till the editor acknowledges they won't continue the copyvio; but I'll leave it to the discretion of the reviewing admin. (This is probably the same user as User:LalatSwain, who also edited some of the same pages a few months ago, and whose edits also contain copyvio). Thanks, Lourdes 12:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I came across Aali, Odisha that had tons of text copied from at least three different sources and tagged it, and at least twice they removed a little bit of it and claimed it was all removed when it wasn't. No attempt to fix any of their other articles, and doesn't seem inclined to do so without someone looking over their shoulder making damn sure they've done it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning and will monitor their contribs. Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Apparent verbal abuse at Antisemitism

User: Malik Shabazz criticized me yesterday for a minor edit on the Saudi Arabia section of Antisemitism. This included three uses of the f-word in violation of WP: Don't be rude and WP: civility. I deleted these and was told by several editors that this was 'disruptive editing'. The f-word is nothing but verbal fungus and I see nothing 'disruptive' in deleting it, still less do I see it as a cause for blocking me. Since then he has called me 'blind' and a 'liar'. The first is in very poor taste ( I have cataracts in both eyes) and the second is unsupported by any evidence. Details are to be found on the Antisemitism talk page and on the two most recent entries on my own User: Crawiki talk page. Crawiki (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You've already been told by three admins on your talkpage that rewriting other people's comments to comply with your personal views constitutes disruptive editing (and been blocked for refusing to listen), so I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by forum-shopping here, but if you insist: rewriting other peoples' comments to comply with your personal views constitutes disruptive editing. You are not the Chief Censor of Misplaced Pages, and it's not your place to censor other people's comments except in a few exceptional circumstances none of which apply here. It's especially not your place to censor other people's comments when you're arguing in support of a tendentious position (that Saudi Arabian immigration authorities don't discriminate against Jews) which can be disproved by about five seconds Google searching. ‑ Iridescent 13:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:CIR issue

See INews TV. I encountered the DAB (now) in this state, that is mainly in ( I presume) Indonesian. Weeding out red links and irrelevant links got me into trouble with 125.161.104.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems dedicated to promoting INews (an Indonesian TV network) and its subsidiaries. Communication with this user proves impossible, since they (apparently) do not speak any English and complain in (I presume) Bahasa Indonesia about vandalism from the users trying to keep the DAB-page in order (1, 2, 3). Also this user does not seem to comprehend that linking to a DAB-page, which links back to the article linked from isn't a good idea. The user in question has been warned multiple times for disruptive editing, but does not seem to know or care. I think we have a compentency issue here. Kleuske (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards