Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:GiantSnowman bot-assisted rollback of good-faith edits

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

---

I came across this while patrolling RC.

GiantSnowman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reverted 416 edits] earlier today. The reverts all bear the same time stamp to the nearest minute leading me to conclude that an automated tool must have been used. Each of the reverted edits had been made over the course of the preceding few days by Veryproicelandic (talk · contribs). GS then left a uw-vandalism3 template on Veryproicelandic's talk page, has not made any explanation (or any other further edits)) in the ensuing several hours. There was no discussion that I could find, of any kind, prior to the mass revert.

Veryproicelandic's edits appear to me to have been good-faith edits, made manually, at considerable effort, to articles on a wide variety of topics. I am frankly baffled as to the substance of the underlying content dispute.

GS has previously made large numbers of reversions that also appear to be bot assisted as in each case, dozens of contributions (albeit fewer than 416) of a single user are reverted within a one-minute period. See, for example, this instance where 100 edits by an IP were reverted. There was a prior incident where over 300 edits by a group of related IPs were reverted over the course of several minutes; subsequently, GS asked for assistance here at ANI to place a range block citing the addition of unsourced material.

I am concerned about this at five levels:

1. WP:BOTP, a policy, covers the operation of bots and has specific requirements for: prior approval, rate throttling, flagging, and communication. The policy makes it clear that high-speed, bot-like edits require prior approval, even if they involve manual steps.
2. WP:ROLL, a guideline, discourages the use of rollback for reversion of good-faith edits, and requires explanation on a suitable talk page in those instances where good-faith edits are rolled back.
3. There is a pattern of a lack of discussion before and after these rollbacks are performed. For example, GS archived these questions without answering them after reverting over 100 good faith edits for which he had offfered only a generic explanation.
4. The reverts are indiscriminate and are not limited to removal of unsourced information. Some of the reverted edits are ones that made mechanical or formatting changes only where sourcing cannot possibly be a factor. Some reverts do not result in removal of the unsourced material but rather reversion to old statistics.
5. GS's own very similar edits to the same subject material typically do not include sources, again leaving me baffled as to the real motive.

This conduct appears to have been going on for quite some time, for example a year ago, after reverting a good-faith edit, GS characterized the edit as vandalism.

I would like to ask for the community's assistance in reviewing the matter, clarifying policy as appropriate, and providing a proper welcome and show of support to the editors who have been on the receiving end of this.

Respectfully, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I think I know the tool used. If you have a look at User:GiantSnowman/common.js, User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js is installed for GS. That will be the tool used to make these edits, and it is very useful for dealing with bona-fide vandals (so useful, I forked it). I need more time to make a judgement on the edits at hand, but an accidental misuse of this tool will revert all edits by the user where their revision is the current version (to some limit, of which I'm not entirely sure). So clearly, using this on an established editor can produce the disastrous results above. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like the tool is only limited by the number of edits that can be displayed on a contributions page, which is limited to 500 if you use the UI, and (I believe) 1000 if you modify the URL. Has there been any discussion specific to the use of the "mass rollback" tool and how it fits in with WP:BOTP? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

You can hotwire the url to get up to 5000 entries on a user contributions page or page history. EEng 02:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Does the tool also automatically leave a vandalism warning on the user's talk page? Because GiantSnowman did that too. Unless this is an unintended side effect of using the tool, it makes it harder to believe that the mass reversion was accidental. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein, I took a quick look at the code at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js, and no - it does not appear to leave vandalism warnings. SQL^{Query me!} 01:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

this warning template is most likely manually placed, based on the edit summary.--DBigXrayᗙ 07:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

He has reverted my good faith edits as well, including correcting "men's" to "women's" under "women's competition" here: [1], and a researched change to Fuad Ibrahim, which he realized was correct... [2] ater reverting three times and telling me I would be banned from Wikipedia because of vandalism: [3]. It's awful "administrators" like him that give Wikipedia a bad name. Thank you! 70.21.191.151 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping that we wouldn't have to escalate this here, but I agree with Uninvited's report. I noticed this today when GiantSnowman mass-reverted 50-100 edits of Veryproicelandic (talk · contribs), with a generic edit summary typical of rollbacks against vandalism. All of the edits I spot-checked (including the specific one that was warned) were not vandalism — they were good faith attempts to clean up {{underlinked}} banners by adding more wikilinks and undertaking other minor improvements of prose, or in some cases removing inappropriate underlinked banners when there was no opportunity to add more links. I wouldn't necessarily have made quite so many new links myself, and there were some minor style issues (e.g. capitaization) with the edits, but that's beside the point. Veryproicelandic is understandably upset, and despite much of a day having passed, GiantSnowman has yet to apologize or respond (despite being required to per WP:ADMINACCT). I thought at first that this was a case of an inexperienced editor misusing rollback privileges and having to be told how to use rollback (or if continuing to not get it to have rollback privileges removed) but with Uninvited's investigation above I see now that GiantSnowman is actually an admin who should definitely know better, and that this is part of a much bigger problematic pattern of edits. I think we should give GiantSnowman some more time to respond, but (as I already said on VPI's talk page) I think an apology and a reversal of these reversions is called for. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I've heard (or seen) mass reversions of an editor's edits (though never nearing 416 edits!) and I've wondered how to address this situation when I've had questions about the rationale. Labeling an editor's work "vandalism" when they are good faith edits can only lead to trouble when you have powerful scripts that can do mass reverts which clearly means that each edit isn't being evaluated as to whether it is damaging or helpful. I look forward to hearing from GiantSnowman and, frankly, any admin who makes use of these scripts to do mass rollbacks on what the threshold is for reverting all of an editor's work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a nuclear weapon - treat it with care. The warning on my script's documentation page

I use my user group highlighting script, which naturally limits the damage a misapplication could cause, I cannot see myself reverting an extended confirmed user like that. I'd absolutely say that these scripts should only be used in the case of obvious vandalism, but would oppose any move to ban them as against BOT policy. If used correctly, these scripts are an invaluable tool against vandals, especially sophisticated vandals making automated edits. WP:IAR is clearly applicable to their existence. For example, my script fork effectively is a form of non-admin block, in that it reverts a user's edits almost as soon as they are made. Automatically. In theory, a user could start making good faith edits and I would be responsible for any resulting 3RR violations. I have reverted a good faith edit with it due to a dynamic IP, where a former user was good faith, the current a vandal. Anybody using these scripts must understand that they are powerful tools, which deserve respect. I will check contributions with this script if there's an older edit that's been reverted, and restore good faith edits caught in the crossfire. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• It's a pretty dry-cut case of semi-automatic editing. Tools never need to be approved and the user using the tools are 100% responsible for the edits made on their behalf. Of course obvious bugs to the tools should to be addressed by the author(s), but no one is obligated to use the tools.—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 01:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  Cyberpower678, I would respectfully disagree based on testing the script just now. This is functionally identical to a bot. I was able to revert a few changes my test account made rapidly, with no intervention or human judgement for each edit. In a semi-automated editing scenario, I would picture it as in AWB, where you must confirm each edit. SQL^{Query me!} 01:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• @SQL: This is basically WP:MEATBOT, which is quite clear that a short burst of fast editing is not itself disruptive. If these tools were used for their purpose, we wouldn't be here. I'd persoanlly stick witb 100% operator accountability, rather than restricting the scripts themselves. My script is particularly interesting wrt to the bot question. It makes a succession of very rapid edits, which a human has effectively signed off on. Then it starts making automated edits at a far more sedate pace (unless the target account is running a bot). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  Bellezzasolo, I may have phrased that poorly. The point I was making was that the script I tested can't be described as semi-automated editing. SQL^{Query me!} 02:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know that I've had dealings with either GiantSnowman or Veryproicelandic. But if this happened to me, I'd be seriously upset about it. According to his user page, Veryproicelandic edited under a previous name (which he identified on his user page). His edit history goes back to 2006, and no blocks under either. Unless there is more to this than immediately has been mentioned here, I think some accountability and editorial recompense is due here. GiantSnowman has some explaining to do. — Maile (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) When I see a mass edit, I expect to see a link to the relevant discussion. If I don't see one, then the editor making the changes should expect to have the edits mass-reverted per WP:BRD. I will normally post an appropriate warning. Mass changes like those made by Keizaal are absolutely and completely unacceptable and stretch good faith to breaking point. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: The least courtesy that could be extended in that situation is an edit summary. The script offers that facility, when reverting non-vandalism there's no excuse for not using an edit summary, certainly with a change of that scale. If an edit summary is used, a rollback is treated as an undo, wheras plain rollback is not meant to be used for good faith edits. Again, the facility to leave an edit summary is offerred. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering if Giant Snowman's account got hacked and somebody else used it to make all of those rollbacks? Sakura Cartelet^Talk 01:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This is an Admin making mass edits that make no sense. Best to block them until there is an explanation on their talkpage. This could get seriously out of hand. Legacypac (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The best explanation I can find is that this was a mistake; should the reverts be mass-unreverted? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree I'm more inclined to believe this was a miss click of some tool or mass rollback script. Hopefully when Giant Snowman is back they will be able to confirm as such. As far as the issue of the account being compromised; it doesn't seem likely. I'd expect to see more damage from a compromised account. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record, my script does prompt for confirmation before performing a mass rollback. Not that click-through syndrome isn't a thing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Just noting GiantSnowman also mass-rollbacked 500 of my edits a couple months ago. He then tried to self mass-revert, but this didn't really work and he ended up re-instating vandalism in countless pages. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• A couple of things:
  • If there's consensus that these edits weren't vandalism or vandalism-adjacent - which it looks to me like there probably is - someone can just mass rollback them all back to veryproicelandic's version (with an edit summary!) But be careful, as L293D notes, it's easy to mess up. The only edits that you can display on the contribs page are the ones you actually want to revert.
  • It makes no sense to claim GS is somehow "violating ADMINACCT" by not replying, when he has not been online since doing the rollback and vandalism warning. We are not required to be online 24 hours a day. He hasn't even seen all this yet.
  • To answer Liz, I've used the mass rollback function a few times, always either with a clear consensus, or because it was clear vandalism. It's use isn't rare. I would never have used it in a case like this.
  • I have a few ideas about how this could have happened, varying from 100% good faith mistake to 100% bad judgement, with a couple of possibilities in between too. The thing to do is wait until GS logs back in.
  • Whether a mistake or a bad decision or somewhere in between, an apology is in order. But we need to be patient and wait for GS to actual log in before he can give one.
  • Suggestions about blocking his account without waiting for an explanation is a perfect example of people who shouldn't be editing ANI.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

417 incorrect rollbacks => no evidence there was a reason for this => possible compromised acct. Given we have had 4 Admins compromised recently it is not an unreasonable possibility. Maybe Flo should not be editing ANi? How much damage could an Admin account do with automated tools while we ponder. Flo would likely block a regular account first and ask questions later. Legacypac (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• (following from notice at WP:BOTN): User driven scripts are outside the purview of WP:BAG to review, and the closest part of the Bot Policy I see is in affect would be Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Bot-like_editing - which says that disruptive edits are just that. As such, WP:DISRUPT applies more than anything in the bot policy so far as the 'edits' go, as well as the rollback guidelines. User scripts themselves require no approval, however the effects of using such a script (including the possibly of disruption due to flooding of RC or WL's) is the responsibility of the editor executing such a script. In this case, the script appears to have legitimate uses for administrators in specific situations. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• I remember the incident L293D is referring to, though I don't recall where the relevant discussions took place. But IIRC, L293D was using AWB to make very minor changes (U.S. to US) in line with updated MOS guidance, and pursuant to a local Wikiproject consensus, rather than a community consensus? I think that's what it was. And it caused a bit of unnecessary drama, but the situation was under community scrutiny and there was never any consensus that his changes should be reverted. It was a minor thing, and the standout moment of the whole situation was GiantSnowman inexplicably executing a mass rollback on L293D, which resulted in actual damage to the project. So, this isn't a one-off situation, and I'm utterly shocked that they haven't learned from that debacle. Mass rollback is one of the most drastic measures you can ever employ on this project, and it should only be used in extreme situations and with extreme caution. I don't think GS is demonstrating the judgment/competence required to use this tool properly, and the issue can and should be easily rectified by deleting the script.  Swarm  talk  03:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • most drastic? Special:Nuke would like a word... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Having had the chance to go out, eat dinner, and play trivia... I've had the opportunity to ruminate on things. I still submit I did nothing wrong. I know I've been pure in my intentions, which, in the worst case, should've merited a "here's what you're doing wrong, Veryproicelandic." Nope, I instead got the Order of the Up Yours (the message), with "You Schmuck" clusters (the reversions). For no reason... and I read the vandalism section carefully. Twice. If I vandalized this site, then Michelangelo vandalized the Sistine Chapel. Now, I -do- appreciate the support I've gotten from all of you in these comments, I should like to say...

As it stands, I'm going to withhold my goodwill from the site (I call myself a Wiki angel, or whatever it's termed when someone comes here in an attempt to make small changes for the common good). I'm not going to be angelic when some mod with an issue says to desist. But please know: this is me refusing as a matter of principle and mild retribution. I wasn't banned. This is my choice to stop helping. I don't like being called an asshole, whether that term be rendered as vandal, saboteur, miscreant, or whatever...

What would I like to return to my angelic ways? An apology in nice big bold letters from Snowman (bold, not normal typeface), and reversion of -all- my edits, all 400+ he screwed with, less any he or anyone else can show are demonstrably improper. Which shouldn't be any.

I'm interested in seeing how this all plays out. I have no financial or other stake in this, save for my reputation here. Let's thus see how Mr. Snowman replies. And I invite him to do so forthwith. I'm listening. Tell me why I'm a vandal, amigo. I'm waiting... Veryproicelandic (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Inspot checked the rollbacks and you are no vandal User:Veryproicelandic. All the ones I checked were good improvement. I suspect this was a stupid error or a compromised acct. Either way all your edits need restoring amd you are more than free to revert GiantSnowman on every edit that someone else has not already restored. It will be good for your edit count. Keep up the good work. It is users like you doing linking, fixes and deorphaning work that make articles more useful to readers. Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you, Legacy. I appreciate the affirmation. I say again: if I'd wanted to do malevolent things on here, I would have years ago, and to historic levels. I'm not like that. I'm about being positive in my influence. I will not screw with a resource of the world. My things are linking, stubbing, and making stuff readable, for those who care. Deorphaning is a more time-consuming thing- I want to create change that can be seen and felt quickly. One day I might go back and fix titles, etc, that are lacking in sources. I do what I like to do and can do easily. Lots of work to be done on matters like that. I'm not too good at creating infoboxes and charts on here, so I let the next guy handle those. And I continue to wait to know why I'm a vandal... Veryproicelandic (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

GS is in the UK so I imagine will see this fairly soon, please be patient and remember not all editors are in the same time zone as you. Fish+Karate 08:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Gosh, what a thing to wake up to. No I have not been hacked or compromised. No I am not using a bot. I used the 'mass rollback' tool. I then went to bed. No it does not add a vandalism warning automatically - I did that manually. I mass reverted Veryproicelandic's edits because I noticed them (amongst other things) deleting valid infoboxes from numerous articles (see eg here and here) and using inaccurate/misleading edit summaries in the process (what 'flag' was removed?!) Having read the above thread, I apologise unreservedly to Veryproicelandic for the misunderstanding, and have self-reverted my edits. I'll also be more careful about use of 'mass rollback' in future. GiantSnowman 08:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The 'flag' being removed is the {{underlinked}} template, as I suspect you know perfectly well. ‑ Iridescent 09:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I've only ever called them 'maintenance tags'. In the area I edit, 'flag' refers to literal flags. Nice to see you AGFing though, particularly given that the editor in question has accepted my apology. GiantSnowman 09:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to get into this mess except to say if I saw that that edit summary I would probably have asked the same thing, 'what flag'? I've heard of people talking about 'flagging' an article for attention and understand the meaning, but I don't recall I've ever heard someone refer to such a template as a 'flag' before. Again, I make no comment on any other aspects of the case like how to respond given such confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems you did the same yesterday to User:Jamieroot11, reverting 32 edits in one minute, with a vandalism warning, only to have to remove your warning and apologise, while still blaming the editor because they didn't use a good enough edit summary[4]. In reality, they were updating stats in the infobox with the edit summary "Updating bio stats"[5], so it seems strange to blame thee edit summary for any confusion.

On 2 December you reverted some 40 edits by User:Footballinbelgium and gave them a final warning for adding unsourced content. Too bad that the things they added were to the infobox (where everything or nearly everything is unsourced) and were correct, e.g. Sam Valcke[6] really is 1m88cm according to Soccerway, and Marius Noubissi really is 1m80cm according to The final ball, in both cases sources already present in the article.

The same day you rollbacked 11 edits by User:Statements2019. You left a much nicer statement at his talk page, and they have since been blocked as socks, ut the use of rollback for non-vandal edits like this one, which was improving the article (replacing outdated unsourced content with up-to-date unsourced but correct content), is again an incorrect use of rollback.

At first sight, your batch of 30 rollbacks in 1 minute to edits by User:Davidstockholm also was incorrect, the editor genuinely was improving articles with updated statistics (e.g. here) and you rollbacked him with a final warning anyway.

With this editor, I see you giving them warning after warning, going back for months, even though they made correct edits all the time. These football articles are sourced to soccerway and the like, as you well know, and there is no need to add a new source to change the match statistics, nor to reflect a new club if that is updated in soccerway as well. I mean, it's not as if you add sources for your changes[7][8][9].

Getting it wrong once (even if it with 400+ edits) is not a problem. Getting it wrong all the time is seriously worrying. I don't know for how long this has been going on, but it is a big problem. Fram (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I've used rollback to "to revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia" (as allowed by rollback!) when it appears that edits are not constructive or vandalism. In the area I edit (football/soccer), we have a major problem of editors adding incorrect statistics to infoboxes. I review a small sample of edits, and if they appear dodgy, I mass rollback. If I'm wrong, then I'll revert and apologise. I've already said I'll be more careful in my use of it. GiantSnowman 10:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I think given the wealth of evidence above about your use of mass rollback, it might be better to check all the edits you are going to rollback before you roll them back. Or stop using the tool entirely. Fish+Karate 10:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I'll definitely be using it far more carefully/sparingly. GiantSnowman 10:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Super Mario Effect at play. If he was not an Admin his rollbacker flag would he gone and sanctions would be imposed. What was done to Veryproiceland is pretty serious, leading to assumptions it had to be a misclick or compromised account. To roll back over 400 gnoming edits as vandalism based on a misunderstood edit summary and no spot checks is pretty crazy. Legacypac (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Err As I've said, I did do a brief sample before rollbacking... GiantSnowman 10:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Legacypac here. I was looking further back, and the pattern is the same over and over.

28 November; you rollback 5 edits by User:Caitlinwebb3 and then block her. The reason? While the editor is updating the stats (correctly), they don't simultaneously update the "club-update" parameter (which indicates the last time the infobox numbers have been updated). Slightly annoying, perhaps. Rollbackable vandalism, no. Blockable, certainly not. What you do is revert the editor, and then readd the same info 8 hours later, with the proper formatting.

On 27 november, you rollback 50 or so edits by User:Cipow, including stuff like this? This, again an editor adding correct info according to already present source Soccerbase[10] (and who does update the date parameter in the infobox)? Like the editor said to you: "It's very simple - You saw one or two articles with no references and reverted 20 odd perfectly referenced articles."

Please stop using rollback completely (certainly the mass rollback tool), and don't block editors for what are basically formatting errors but in any case good faith edits. A next ANI discussion about these issues, if they would continue, is unlikely to end without sanctions. Fram (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how many more times I can say "sorry, I'll be more careful in future" before people start listening. GiantSnowman 11:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, you could start by going over your batches of rollback use, vandalism and block warnings, and actual blocks, and self-revert and/or apologize to those where no vandalism happened. Fram (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I've already self-reverted and apologised to editors in question. GiantSnowman 11:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Really? User talk:Caitlinwebb3, User talk:Cipow, User talk:Davidstockholm, User talk:Footballinbelgium, ... LikeI said above, you issued a non-apology at User talk:Jamieroot11, blaming the rollback on his incorrect edit summaries, even though these were quite accurate and clear. You didn't apologise to the other four I identified. I have seen no evidence of self-reverting either. And that doesn't even take into account that you should check your many other cases of mass rollbacking as well, as it seems unlikely that these problems only started a week ago or that I found all instances in this short time. Fram (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On the topic of "club-update" / "pc-update", this has been discussed quite recently at WT:Footy here and User:GiantSnowman isn't the only admin who takes the view of reverting if the timestamp isn't updated. There is reliance on WP:BURDEN to support this, and there is a tendency to WP:BITE or worse. It would be much better for the reverter to correct the information, or as a minimum include a helpful edit summary and talk page notification if reverting these WP:AGF edits. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The Super Mario thing is specious - that refers to an admin being desysopped back to a regular editor instead of being blocked/banned, much like big Mario gets reduced to little Mario instead of dying. None of the rollbacking carried out by GS involves use of administrative tools, and his sysop status isn't really relevant. If a common or garden editor was making errors in the use of the mass rollback tool, in this way, they would be given clear instructions to either stop using it, or at least stop making errors using it, and if they failed to understand why what they were doing was unhelpful and/or carried on doing it, they'd be formally barred from using the tool. I don't see why we would need to change that approach here. GS has been given a clear message that he needs to take far more care. He has agreed with this, and has apologised, and he will be well aware that people will be 'checking his work'. I think that's sufficient for now. Fish+Karate 11:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is the second time in a week that I've come across a example of questionable judgement by GiantSnowman and I don't find his responses so far to be satisfactory. Fram's suggestion that he stop using mass rollback seems prudent under the circumstances. GiantSnowman would you agree to voluntarily stop using mass rollback and to carefully check each edit before applying standard rollback from now on? In other words, stop using rollback to simply revert edits that you personally disagree with.- MrX 🖋 12:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, I've already said I will. However, your insinuation that I have misused rollback on 'edits I don't like' is false. All my reverts have been good faith, "to revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia" as is allowed. GiantSnowman 12:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure that inadvertent misuse is any different to repeated incompetent use. Either applies. Leaky Caldron 13:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Question re the rollback tool

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

---

To my memory, I've never used the tool, because I never figured out what it was for. Well .. at least I now know what it does. Any article history where I compare revisions gives me 3 Rollback options (Rollback AGF/Rollback/Rollback Vandal). So, obviously it's an admin tool, because I certainly would not have loaded a script for something I know nothing about.

Given what has happened here, and given that this seems to not be the first for this editor, in light of what Fram has listed, could we eliminate the Rollback as part of the admin bundle of tools? It would be optional based on request. If mis-used, the tool could be taken away from an admin without eliminating the other tools. We could grandfather in the tool for those admins who already have it, and proceed forward with the rest. This seems to be a dangerous tool to automatically include in a set of tools. — Maile (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Maile66: What you see is not an admin tool. ——SerialNumber54129 12:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC) See------------------->

I have rollback pretty much from the moment it was available, and I have extended experience with the flag, but to be honest, I never used (consciously) these three options you mention (which appear above the edit summary), I only use the rollback button which is right of the edit summary, next to the undo button. This one is harmless as it only can roll back one edit. (I still sometimes misclick, and just today I accidentally rolled back several edits on an ArbCom Case page, but this is easy to notice and to repair). If the rollback vandal button performs mass rollback without a prompt, it is dangerous and must not be shown, but I do not believe this is the case. (I wanted to test it in my sandbox, but was just scared). I guess mass rollback comes from a script. If this is the case, mass rollback must in any case come with a prompt, and can not be accepted if the edit summary is not filled in manually. But I guess this is a different problem, not what you mention.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The mass rollback tool is not an admin function, it's a bit of javascript. The only "rollback" that 'comes with' the admin bit is the same one everyone else with rollback permissions has, and I do not think that this needs to be unbundled from admin rights. WP:NUKE is an admin function, but that's not what GS used. Fish+Karate 12:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. A usual (non-admin) rollbacker can only roll back all edits of the same user on one page at a time without a prompt.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly - (rightfully) slap my wrists for being overzealous with my reverts, but do not say I have been abusing admin tools or anything like that. That is not the case. GiantSnowman 13:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

GiantSnowman's voluntary restriction

The discussion above should not have been closed so abruptly, and certainly not with so much vagueness. I understand GiantSnowman has agreed not to use mass rollback in the future and that he will carefully check each edit before applying standard rollback from now ("For the umpteenth time, I've already said I will."). If I have misinterpreted his intent, please say so.- MrX 🖋 13:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

To clarify - I'll continue to use mass rollback against clear vandalism/socks etc. However, I'll be far more careful about using it in greyer areas (such as this incident and some others highlighted by other users). GiantSnowman 13:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad I asked. I don't think that's satisfactory in light of the previous discussion. I'm not at all confident in your judgement to use mass rollback in the rare circumstances that it's actually called for.- MrX 🖋 14:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Why does GS not simply require the user who has made the "defective" edits to change them / rollback themselves? That way there is no room for error. There is no rush. Leaky Caldron

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

• It should be clear that this report documents an admin engaging in the repeated abuse of mass rollback. They have not given a response that suggests that they appreciate the gravity of the situation, and they have not provided a convincing resolution, and have only vaguely stated that they "will be more careful". In this context, a unilateral close of ongoing discussion, with a declaration that the issue has been resolved voluntarily, is concerning, and reeks of the admin corps protecting itself. Mind you, I'm a believer in admin solidarity, but not if one of us is repeatedly behaving like an idiot and then completely dismissing the community's outrage. I would simply like to make my dissent to the closing statements known for the record.  Swarm  talk  08:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "Abuse" implies deliberate malice; I don't think that's the case here. Better descriptions would be "inadvertent misuse", or "worrying incompetence". Fish+Karate 10:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    • The former and not the latter! GiantSnowman 15:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ironically, when I raised that same concern, the discussion was closed and I was threatened with a block. You're an admin, so your YMMV.- MrX 🖋 15:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I threatened you with a block because you weren't trying to address the issue, you were just chasing GiantSnowman around demanding they do what you say. That's not appropriate. As an example of what you should have done instead, see Fram's post below. @Swarm: please strike/retract/modify/(whatever) your "behaving like an idiot" comment, it is a clear personal attack, and there's already a lot of hostility here about admins getting away with things that non-admins would be sanctioned for. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      • That's a blatant lie. GS followed me to Bbb23's talk page and I simply asked him to clarify his ambiguous statement. It was entirely appropriate and all you did was inflame the issue as you seem to be trying to do now. Please stop.- MrX 🖋 15:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
        • No, I didn't follow you anywhere - I was pinged by @Ivanvector: in this edit. Please can people start AGFing and stop accusing me of things?! GiantSnowman 16:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
          • "Followed", not in the perjorative sense; "followed" as in, you arrived there after me. Ivanvector fabricated the narrative that I chased you around.- MrX 🖋 16:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict × 2) This is you demanding (not asking or suggesting) that GiantSnowman comply with your demand. This is you saying their response was "not good enough", implying that you were going to continue hounding them about it until you deemed their response worthy. This, well, really I just didn't appreciate this. These were all after you were asked twice to stop. If I've misinterpreted your motive then I apologize, but I would appreciate if you would retract your "blatant lie" comment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
          • No, it was not demanding. It was clarifying what was asked, explaining my understanding of his answer, and commented that I didn't think the answer was sufficient. I'll be happy to retract my "blatant lie" comment if you will retract your comment about chasing GS around. Fair?- MrX 🖋 16:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
            • No, I don't agree to that. When the first discussion was closed because GS had already answered the questions to everyone's satisfaction (other than yours), you started a new discussion below to continue your pursuit. When that one was closed, you went to the closing admin's page and demanded it be reopened so you could continue your hounding again, and when that admin didn't respond you just kept right on going on their talk page. If you don't see what's wrong with this, you are heading for a block. You might disagree with my interpretation of your actions but there is no fabrication involved here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
              • MrX, enough already, please. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
              • Apparently neither of us agree with the other's interpretation of the facts. I'm fine with leaving it at that.- MrX 🖋 16:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Time for a formal restriction?

The voluntary restriction from yesterday seems to be worthless. Today, we get things like [11], where an editor changes an unsourced old kit for a club (used in 2014 and thereabouts) to an equally unsourced kit, which is the kit used last year (home kit in both cases, I haven't checked the away kit). This is not clear vandalism by any stretch of the imagination, and no indication that it is a sock either. Not a rollback candidate at all. The same here, where again it looks as if the rollbacked edit was better than the one reverted to (see the current kit e.g. [12][13]. We can't take away rollback from an admin, but we can impose a topic ban. Other solutions are welcome as well. Fram (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It'd be nice if you notified an editor when you propose an editing restriction about them - good job I happened to see this post on my watchlist, isn't it. It was the rollback of a new editor who has repeatedly added unsourced and unexplained content to articles. Those rollbacks are allowed as they "revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia". GiantSnowman 15:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a continuation of a section about you, not a new section. And your definition of when rollback is allowed has been shown to be defective just yesterday, and you said you would be much more careful, not "I will continue to use my own rules like before". Like I just explained and showed, the editor was replcaing outdated unsourced content (the kits) with more up-to-date, correct, but still unsourced content. That's no reason to rollback (or to threaten with blocks), and these are not edits which are "unhelpful to the encyclopedia" (or, for that matter, "widespread"). Fram (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a section that was closed (twice) and which I had presumed was done with. I have not said "I will continue to use my own rules like before", do not try and put words in my mouth or misrepresent my stance here. Have you even bothered to look what I did with the editor's other edits? I'll give you a clue - I didn't rollback them. I reviewed them and undid them as unsourced and left a warning. Trying to claim that I'm rollbacking editors willy-nilly is absolutely false. GiantSnowman 15:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

So these abuses of rollback are allowed because you didn't rollback his other edits? That's a novel excuse. As for putting words in your mouth, I said "you said X, not "Y"". I literally said that you did not say that... My claim is that you are rollbacking edits where there is no justification at all for the use of rollback, and this a day after you were brought here because you did the exact same thing time and again with many editors recently. You made a clear statement that "I'll continue to use mass rollback against clear vandalism/socks etc. However, I'll be far more careful about using it in greyer areas", but there is no evidence at all that you are more careful at all, since you still use rollback where it is not allowed at all. Fram (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not abuse at all - and as previously stated the rollback is allowed. I've directly quoted from WP:ROLLBACK to show that it is. I have taken on board everything that was said in the previous discussion. PS I'm still awaiting an apology for not informing me of this discussion :) GiantSnowman 15:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously two edits that improve the encyclopedia are the same as widespread edits that are unhelpful to the encyclopedia. Quoting policies is very good, understanding them (and applying them correctly) would be even better though. Fram (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

How were those edits, made by an new editor with a short history of only making disruptive edits (adding unsourced and/or nationalistic content), "improving the encyclopaedia"?! I've lost count of the number of vandals I have encountered over the past 12 years who have messed with kits in infoboxes. GiantSnowman 16:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I have explained enough times how these edits which you rollbacked were clearly improving the encyclopedia, in the same way that your "unsourced" edits updating the number of games people have played improve the encyclopedia. Looking at their other edits, I don't see the disruption you claim, I see a new editor who needs guidance on the replacement of "English" with "Cornish", and who should get our thanks for their other changes. this is their first edit: birth date is correct and sourced[14], place of birth is correct and sourced, youth club is correct as well. The only "disruption" is changing English to Cornish, which is something we don't do but which isn't vandalism. When they made the change again, but without the Cornish aspect, you again blindly reverted, and then readded 90% of the same information in your own name[15] using the sources already in the article; you could just as easily have just formatted the edit by the "disruptive" editor instead, instead of bombarding them with warnings of increasing severity. Here as well you removed a clear improvement, adding the correct name of the manager to the infobox. Yes, it was unsourced, just like everything else in that infobox, but that's no reason to remove it. Using their "disruptiveness" as an excuse for your rollbacking of other edits they made only shows that you seem to have developed an "all new editors to football articles are vandals" attitude which is not how we are supposed to treat newbies. You need to check if their edits are improvements or if they are inserting false information, and only then should you treat them as disruptive or as vandals. Having this as the default approach is not acceptable. Fram (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support (suspended comment since GiantSnowman is going to be away for a few days; see below) ban on the use of rollback, whether by UX or by script. Sorry, GiantSnowman, these are clearly inappropriate uses of rollback, and we just went through this yesterday. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, suggest this should be a ban on the use of rollback without an edit summary, as that does seem to be the problem with the latest rollbacks. These were not obviously vandalism, and while reverting might have been appropriate, doing so without saying why (which implies vandalism as a rationale) was what was actually inappropriate. As far as using Twinkle's green or blue rollbacks or the massrollback scripts (which all allow entering an edit summary) there doesn't seem to be a problem there as long as GS describes what they're doing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Which I've already started doing, before this thread kicked off, see here. If that's all that is required (and yes, I probably should have been doing it earlier!) then that's easily solved and I'll do it for all. GiantSnowman 16:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd like to believe that this is an issue that could be resolved through discussion, and in light of your comment below I've struck part of mine above; hopefully we can discuss more after your weekend. The problem I see here is that you're interpreting as clear vandalism edits which are not so clearly vandalism to those of us who don't edit in these topics, and really the bigger problem is that you're rolling back new-ish editors who probably don't know that what they believe to be a good-faith contribution is problematic: you haven't given any indication as to why, just, they made an edit and now it's gone for no specified reason. That's why nobody should ever make a revert of any kind without an edit summary giving a reason, other than cases where it's obvious that the editor clearly knows that what they're doing is wrong. Any not-obviously-disruptive edit is exempt from standard rollback, and that includes unsourced edits, editing tests, content with glaring English problems, and even in cases where you're reverting a banned editor you should probably say so in the edit summary (the policy says you don't have to but also warns to be prepared to explain). And for widespread unhelpful edits the policy says you must provide an explanation somewhere - why not in the edit summary? massrollback allows this, unless you're using some script that doesn't in which case you should stop using it. Please consider this, but do enjoy your weekend. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:ROLLBACK allows the rollback of edits "judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia". Therefore I'm simply using my judgment and experience in those areas. In 99% of cases (and the 1% will have been oversight) I have always left a talk page template message explaining why. I acknowledge I should have used the massrollback (which btw is the only script I use here) edit summary function as well, something which I started today prior to Fram raising further concerns. GiantSnowman 16:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The policy allows that iff you provide an explanation somewhere. I would suggest, and I'm going to suggest it as a change to the policy, that you should use an edit summary in those cases, for accountability, even if that edit summary is along the lines of "please see <page where you've provided an explanation>". You're already using the script so it should not be difficult. Otherwise, I'm satisfied. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

FWIW I'd support (and obviously follow) such a policy wording change. GiantSnowman 16:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment - I'm logging off in about an hour for the weekend (nowadays I'm busy most long weekends, as you'll see from my editing history/user page updates, before my 'fans' accuse me of running from this) and likely won't be back till Sunday/Monday. This means I won't have chance (for better or worse) to respond to any comments. All I will say is this - I know I've been overzealous at times with rollback, but never maliciously or abusively. It's always been to revert clear vandalism, socks, or edits which I have "judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia" (as is allowed). I'll note Fram, while trawling through my contribs for these 'latest indiscretions' (which, for reasons I have already explained, I don't think are - otherwise I wouldn't have used ) has conveniently ignored my rollbacks exercised at this AN request. You'll note that for those edits I provided a bespoke edit summary explaining what I was doing and why I was rollbacking. That's something I should have done before, I know. I apologised for my edits the other night (accepted by the editor in question and a decent number of others) and have genuinely committed to being more careful, given that my reverts have sometimes caught up valid edits. Whenever that has happened I've apologised and self-reverted. If that's not enough and you still want my blood, then fine. I'll come back to the outcome in a few days. If it's as I fear then, given how I've felt over the past 24 hours, I probably won't return to editing at all tbh. I've been an editor for nearly 13 years and an admin for nearly 7, with no blemishes. It genuinely feels like I'm being harassed hounded out and it's deeply unpleasant. GiantSnowman 16:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The problem is he wants to use rollback in grey areas - with grey seemingly covering hundreds of useful edits. I was unconvinced yesterday that he actually took responsibility for his abuse of rollback and that was confirmed today. Cries of harassment are misplaced - if he was not an admin he would have been blocked or sanctioned by an Admin already. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Again, rollback is allowed for edits "judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia". I judged these edits to be unhelpful, as they were unsourced and unexplained and in an area that has been ripe for vandalism in the past. Again, that is allowed per WP:ROLLBACK. So are you saying that I am not allowed to use rollback for edits even though WP:ROLLBACK says I am? GiantSnowman 16:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• The edits by MrMo4 (talk · contribs) are all unsourced, and unexplained, and they include BLP material. Rolling them back, and warning for it, is not wrong, even if they replaced equally unsourced material. If unsourced material has been in the article for a long time, and if we have no reason to suspect it's somehow false or contaminated, we typically don't remove it, unless it's otherwise troubling. But if an editor keeps making unsourced and unexplained changes, after being warned a few times, what reason does the average admin/editor/reader have to trust the information? And what are Template:Uw-unsourced2, Template:Uw-ucblock, etc. for if not that? Given the pattern of MrMo4's editing, these reverts and warnings are par for the course. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Question, since we're being pedantic about policies: a good-faith replacement of unsourced material seems as though it invokes the "challenged or likely to be challenged" clause of the verifiability policy (see WP:MINREF), even if what it's replaced with is also unsourced. How does reverting such an edit interact with the WP:BURDEN section of the same policy? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Ivanvector, my point is rather that in this case, that of MrMo4 there could have been legitimate doubt about the good faith of the editor. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Not if you actually looked at their edits. What are their mistakes? They added unsourced content (mainly to unsourced infoboxes), but all their added content was correct, and all their added content was a real improvement bar the replacement of English with Cornish (the player is Cornish, but we use the official football countries, not some regionalistic indicators). With some guidance on this latter part, this good-faith, helpful newbie could well have turned out to be a good new editor. Now, we have one editor less. This is a rather severe example of WP:BITE, coupled with misuse of rollback. Fram (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• GS, no one doubts your good intentions, but if you "judged these edits to be unhelpful" when they were actually helpful, and if you've done that repeatedly, that means your judgment has been poor. You should either improve it or stop doing those reverts. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Also, GiantSnowman, please don't describe this as your being harassed. As an editor for nearly 13 years and an admin for nearly 7, you should know that you're expected to be able to account for your editing and/or use of the tools to which you have access. Being asked to do so is not tantamount to harassment and nobody is trying to hound you out. The concerns, I think, at this point, are the fact that you apologized and said you would be far more careful about the use of rollback, and then promptly resumed doing the same things. That's exactly why WP:IDHT was written. You say this is deeply unpleasant for you, but how do you think those well-meaning editors you're mass reverting without explanation feel? That's exactly why WP:BITE was written, addressing the fact that some behaviours drive potentially productive new editors off the project rather than helping them. Fish+Karate 11:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Popping back briefly - though the discussion looks to have naturally ended and moved onto the RFC? If anybody wants anything further from me here then just ping me please. But two quick points - @173, unfortunately many people have doubted my good intentions, accusing me of abuse etc. @Fish and karate: fair point. I fully accept that I need to account - and thought I had. Wiser and better admins than I had reviewed the thread and closed it (twice) after I had explained myself and apologised; a day later it was raised again and I was accused of abuse again, hence why I described it as harassment (perhaps a strong word, on reflection) and unpleasant (which it was - I have tried so hard to genuinely improve this encyclopedia with every single edit of mine, and for people to start doubting that after so long was hurtful). GiantSnowman 11:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• It was "raised again" because you continued with the same kind of wrong rollbacks after the section had been closed, based on the false promise you made then. If that is harassment, then you have done the same countless times, when you are reverting or rollbacking the same editors again and again, with ever stronger warnings. This is normal, when you (or someone else) notices a problem with the editing of someone, you keep an eye on their next edits to see if the problem reappears. Calling this "harassment" is still not accepting that you did anything wrong (even though you apologised in one instance, and claimed to change you behaviour). That is is unpleasant may well be so, but that's hardly a reason to turn a blind eye to your rollback problems and general problems with your ABF approach to new (or even established) editors. The discussion has not "naturally ended and moved onto the RfC", the RfC has no bearing on your actions and possible sanctions. Perhaps you could start with looking at the analysis of the edits you claimed were so unhelpful that they warranted multiple warnings, blind reversal and rollbacking? That would be more helpful than defending yourself by pointing out that you have tried to improve the encyclopedia. Without any indication that you have learned anything from this section (pre- and post-close), you complaints about others and compliments for yourself are meaningless. Fram (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Time for policy adjustments?

Shouldn't we modify all the policies saying that rolling back of edits which are not vandalism (obvious blatant clear vandalism as per WP:VANDALISM) must contain a custom edit summary (which only applies if the roll back is performed by script, usual rollback may not be used for anything different from vandalism) and must be preceded by a message at the talk page of the user who is affected?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree, but would say vandalism and reverting socks are the exceptions (you wouldn't post at a sock's talk page per DENY). Everything else needs a manual edit summary and talk page post. GiantSnowman 17:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Possibly serious BLP violations as well, though I have difficulties imagining a real situation when the problem of massive BLP violations could be solved by rollback.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for checks & balances. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Rollback is frequently troubling enough already in the hands of Recent change patrollers. Only yesterday I talked to someone who had simply rolled back (with Twinkle, maybe, I don't know) an IP edit without explanation. That this is done without explanation is the norm, these days. But mass rollback, which is a magnificent tool, is a bit different. Above, someone said "there's no rush"--IMO mass rollback is precisely also for those cases where there is a rush, where a boatload of unhelpful edits need to be reverted before subsequent edits, including those by SineBot etc., make the edits inaccessible to rollback. But I'm straying from Ymblanter's point a bit--of course rollback edits, vandalism or not, should be accompanied by an edit summary (Twinkle can now add "good faith" or "vandalism", right?) And a mass rollback should be enacted with a decent edit summary. Now before some archeologist dives in to find me mass-rollbacking without explanation: if I run into a sock of some LTA, I'm going to hit mass rollback as fast as a I can and click right through--but in such a case the subsequent block will make that motivation clear. And Ymblanter, frequently that does involve massive BLP violations, including outing and harassment. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Have a gander at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal: changes to the Rollback policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we need the flexibility to allow some room for judgment and discretion -- both qualities that admins are expected to possess.

The goal of the policy for rollback and vandalism is that people using rollback have to judge the intent of an edit. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of rollbacks every day where the edit being rolled back was the addition of the word "poop" somewhere in the article. I guess we were all 9 years old at one time or another. Similarly there are dozens (if not hundreds) of edits being rolled back where random chunks of articles were blanked, "John Doe is a great minecraft player" is added, or dates are changed to clearly implausible ones. There's no point in discussing any of these edits with their perpetrators because they already know what was wrong with their edit. We have the "Your test worked! Use the sandbox in future" template for these which puts the very best possible construction on the editor's intent. The use of that template is optional.

Where the subjective intent of a change is unclear, it is incumbent upon admins to slow down, check the facts, check history, check other contributions, and determine how to proceed. It is appropriate to treat edits as vandalism when it becomes clear that the individual who made it was working in bad faith -- they weren't making an effort to contribute useful information, or were deliberately and knowingly ignoring our way of doing things. Otherwise, it is important to communicate, and to take the time to make clear to the other contributor why their change is being reverted, with specificity. This is settled policy and is the foundation of how we build articles. Any edit that is a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism and, if reverted, requires an explanation. Where and when this explanation must be provided is a matter more open to interpretation and judgment. The less clear the situation, the greater the requirement to discuss in advance rather than notify post hoc. Where a good-faith edit is a combination of the useful and the problematic, it is broadly incumbent upon Wikipedians deciding what to do with the edit to allow the useful portions to stand.

Anyone who has done much RC patrolling will realize that admins are going to make the occasional mistake due to the sheer volume of questionable edits. I get that. But as a general rule, admins are expected to make the right call the vast majority of the time, slow down, explain what they are doing, explain policy, welcome people, etc. UninvitedCompany 18:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't need more policy creep. Do need more willingness to call out crappy reverting and to shut it down through restrictions or technical means if it doesn't stop after gentle feedback and guidance is attempted. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

480 more edits rolled back on December 9, 2018

GS is back today and has just used the mass rollback tool to revert 480 good-faith edits by an IP, with no explanation beyond subst-ing a uw-unsourced2 on the IP's talk page and an edit summary of "reverting mass addition of unsourced content." The IP had made the edits, apparently manually, over a period of about a week. Some of these edits appear to be perfectly good and sufficiently sourced by references already present in the articles. For example, this change is supported by the existing source listed in the article.

I can't find any way to see these rollbacks in a good light. It appears to me that GS is mass-reverting mixtures of good and bad edits without individually reviewing each one. Aside from exceptional cases that don't apply here -- like high-speed vandalism or bots run amok -- we are expected to review each and every edit before rolling it back. There is also a requirement to explain and discuss. Rolling back a week's worth of work deserves a higher level of engagement than one sentence and a template. If there are Wikiproject requirements specific to the subject matter, those should be linked, for example. If various edits are problematic but for different reasons, that has to be pointed out.

GS, I would ask you to:

1. Undo your recent reversions and engage in discussion with the IP to address any problems you believe exist.
2. Stop using the mass-reversion tool for purposes other than dealing with high-speed vandalism.
3. Stop reverting football-related edits that you have not individually reviewed.
4. Provide an individualized explanation for any reversions you make, that demonstrates respect for good-faith efforts made by new contributors.

UninvitedCompany 19:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, these reverts are allowed by WP:ROLLBACKUSE - "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page". I came across an IP making a large number of unexplained and unsourced edits (a majority of which involved BLPs) in an area where this type of editing is a major problem. I used - as previously requested - a bespoke edit summary and then left a template message on the talk page. What would you have done differently? GiantSnowman 19:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The edit summary was misleading. You reverted both additions and deletions not just additions. I don't know if the edits were all correct or not but they look pretty uncomtroversial adding missing player numbers, adding amd deleting players from squads etc. The ones I spot checked were surrounded by otherwise completely unsourced text. I saw nothing that looked like vandalism.

You rolled back over 400 good faith edits representing a weeks worth of work because you THINK that is what rollback is for, while a discussion about doing exactly the same thing is still open. Sorry but rollback rights would have been removed already if you were not an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

GS, you're on extremely thin ice, and invoking WP:CRYBLP for something as inoffensive as an athlete's jersey number isn't going to help. Much as it pains me to agree with Legacypac on anything, this is the kind of thing that at minimum would get rollback revoked in a non-admin; there's no possible way you could have manually checked 400+ reverts to make sure you weren't making any incorrect reverts in the minute or so it took you to perform them. ‑ Iridescent 20:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

User:GiantSnowman, I agree with Iridescent (much as it pains me, haha!--no, it doesn't pain me). Look, I know very well that "your" area, that soccer stuff, suffers from those editors who make tons of these unverified and unexplained changes, and I dislike such edits as much as you do, but you really are on thin ice here. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I also concur with above, and want to add that I would have thought that, having had a huge section of AN/I dedicated to this issue, apologies and promises, you would have stayed clear of any rollbacks/reverts, let alone 480 of them. This is inexcusable, and it's only because you're an admin that the rollback right has not yet been revoked. Aiken D 22:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I've self-reverted and will no longer use mass rollback in these kind of circumstances. GiantSnowman 09:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@User:GiantSnowman, it appears to me that you have undone many of your reverts but have also left many in place (example). Was this deliberate? Also, you do not appear to have contacted the IP to work things out. Are you still working on these things, or have you completed what you planned to do? UninvitedCompany 18:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@UninvitedCompany: I went through my contribs and reverted all edits that appeared, how strange that some have been missed? Let me try again. I'll also leave a message for the IP. GiantSnowman 18:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't see any more I have missed on my contribs list? GiantSnowman 18:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman:It may help to take a look at the IP's contributions. That's how I found it. There were others. The number of self-reverts you made seemed quite a bit fewer than 480, just by looking at the list, which is why I checked. ::shrug:: UninvitedCompany 18:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Really? [16][17][18][19][20][21]... There are dozens of these ... Fram (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter and User:Bbb23 have both shut down earlier versions this discussion with closes that have been proven wrong. The only admin action so far has been to threaten an editor questioning GS and several attempt to stop the discussion. What is the solution here? Obviously GS has no infention of stopping their mass reverts of constructive edits. Legacypac (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I am perturbed by this whole thing, we are very much into I didn't hear that territory at this point. If GiantSnowman is not listening, and clearly he is not, his admin status should not preclude him from being treated the same as any other editor. Therefore I suggest a topic ban from use of rollback for three months. No "except when doing X", no "other than when Y happens", all rollback. Fish+Karate 09:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You've clearly just missed me say "I won't do it again". GiantSnowman 09:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No, you said "I won't use mass rollback in these kind of circumstances". That is not the same thing, at all. Fish+Karate 10:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

OK then, let me clarify. I will no longer use rollback for #5 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE, which is the area where the issue lies. Instead I will reveiew individual edits and use the manual 'undo' if appropriate. GiantSnowman 10:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Others may disagree, and I always want to assume good faith, but I am not sure how many more of these pledges I can believe.

After the initial concerns were raised on 4 December by Uninvited Company at the top of this thread:

• "I'll also be more careful about use of 'mass rollback' in future" (5 Dec)
• "I've already said I'll be more careful in my use of it" (5 Dec)
• "I'll definitely be using it far more carefully/sparingly" (5 Dec)
• "I don't know how many more times I can say "sorry, I'll be more careful in future" before people start listening" (5 Dec)
• "I'll be far more careful about using (mass rollback) in "greyer" areas" (5 Dec)

The next day, 6 December, Fram raises concerns about further misuse of rollback (link)

• "Trying to claim that I'm rollbacking editors willy-nilly is absolutely false" (6 Dec)
• "I have taken on board everything that was said in the previous discussion" (6 Dec)
• "genuinely committed to being more careful, given that my reverts have sometimes caught up valid edits" (6 Dec)

Three days later, 9 December, it happens again, with Uninvited Company raising concerns about further misuse of rollback (link).

I'm really sorry, GS, but how many more times is this cycle of issue raised/apology/pledge to change/issue raised going to occur? At what point does good faith run out? I really want to believe you have taken this all on board, I still think a topic ban may, sadly, be necessary. Fish+Karate 10:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Or to summarise this whole debacle - I used mass rollback, it was highlighted to me it was wrong, I reverted and said I would be more careful. A few days later I used mass rollback again, thinking it was in-line with WP:ROLLBACKUSE (obviously not), it was highlighted to me I was wrong, I reverted and said I would stop full stop. If my word isn't good enough and you want/need a formal topic ban then fine, but either way there won't be any more mass rollback for 'good faith' edits. GiantSnowman 10:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not what happened. I've added the missing bits in italics. "I used mass rollback, it was highlighted to me it was wrong, I reverted and said I would be more careful. Many other instances of the same issue over the preceding days were shown, but I did nothing about these. The next day, I used rollback again, it was again shown to be incorrect, but I maintained that I was right against all evidence, and started playing the victim card. A few days later I used mass rollback again, thinking it was in-line with WP:ROLLBACKUSE (obviously not), it was highlighted to me I was wrong, I reverted and said I would stop full stop." This was not the second time you used mass rollback incorrectly, or the first time since the problems were explained to you at length. Fram (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Every non-admin would have had their rollback rights removed by now, indefinitely, with the requirement to come back here after at least six months if they want the right back. I see no reason to treat someone differently just because they are an admin. The only difference is that we can't remove the right technically (without deadminning), so we have to make it a formal topic ban instead. Promises of voluntary better behaviour have been broken again and again. So I propose an indefinite topic ban on the use of rollback, with a right to appeal the topic ban here (or at AN) no sooner than 6 months from now. Fram (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

"I misused mass rollback, it was highlighted to me it was wrong, I said I would be more careful, the next day I misused mass rollback again, it was highlighted to me I was wrong, I said I would be more careful, three days later I misused mass rollback again, it was highlighted to me I was wrong, so I will stop now and I really really mean it this time". Enough. Support topic ban. Fish+Karate 10:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Clearly a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Not uncommon in the wiki-world of soccer. Leaky Caldron 10:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Me: "I'll stop"

"He's not listening"

"No, I said I'll stop"

"He's not listening"

"Look I've even removed the script"

"I still can't believe he's not listening"... GiantSnowman 11:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You said you would take more care on at least eight different occasions (as linked above) and have not done so, I'm sure you can understand why people will raise a collective eyebrow. Finally removing the tool is a positive step, thank you for doing so. Fish+Karate 12:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

But there haven't been 8 'cycles' of this though - there was the initial mass rollback which started the original discussion, the 2 disputed ones raised by Fram on 6th, and then this on 9th. (Unless I'm missing any?) Again, all of which seemsed to me at the time to be covered by WP:ROLLBACKUSE (though, clearly, not). GiantSnowman 12:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

^^^Would be appealing a block by now if not an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there a precedent (does it fall under topic bans?) for asking administrators not to use rollback for a set period of time? Vermont (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Support 6 month ban on Any use of Rollback. How many times have they abused rollback before they were caught? Very clearly don't understand what it is for but like rollback so much they built imported a tool for it. Legacypac (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Err I didn't "build a tool for it" - it was an existing script created by somebody else. But don't let the truth get in your way, it hasn't stopped you so far! GiantSnowman 14:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You might want to remove your personal attack - that is a blockable offence. Does the script not have your name on it? I recall it did but if I'm incorrect on that, sorry. Legacypac (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: No personal attack has been made, calm down, this thread is addressing GiantSnowman's use of rollback. I can understand GS's frustration with your comment, he did not create the tool, and so your saying "like rollback so much they built a tool for it" is not a truth. Pointing this out is not a personal attack. If anything needs to be removed, it is your incorrect assertion. Fish+Karate 14:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nope it's a script by @Writ Keeper:. As F&K said, it's not a personal attack and certainly not blockable. I'll also invite your retraction first. GiantSnowman 14:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Everybody calm down, please. There have been no personal attacks here, only confusion and emotion, both understandable. Being "out for blood" is unbecoming. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I've struck. It's hard to remain calm given the amount of misinformation/misinterpretation in this thread. 14:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I see, the incorrect claim by Legacypac was the only bit of "misinformation/misinterpretation" not by you. You have been consistently misinterpreting or misapplying policy, and misrepresenting good-faith, constructive editors as unconstructive near-vandals or vandals. And misinforming us about your intentions to change your behaviour. Fram (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Some have said this happened 8 times. It hasn't. Some said it is abuse. It isn't. Yes my historical view and use of #5 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE was clearly wrong; I realise that now, hence why I've said I'll just stop (given my attempt to be better at it didn't work). I have not misinformed anybody - and that is yet another example of "misinformation/misinterpretation" from you. GiantSnowman 14:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The "8 times" was the number of times you promised to change your approach. And your many and continued mass rollbacks, and accompanying warnings and blocks, were an abuse of the tool and your position. And you have misinformed people here, multiple times, e.g. in your "summary" of what happened so far, which I had to correct, or in your claims that the edits you reverted were unconstructive, or in your claims that you would change your approach, where no one but you sees any change in your use of rollback after your first batch of promises, or after your second batch of promises. Fram (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

But the implication is that I have promised and then broken that and re-promised 8 times. That is clearly not the case. Put them in batches, yes - so you agree on two? So why keep hammering about 8, other than to try and make me look worse than I am? Hmm? GiantSnowman 14:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I have used "8 times" one time, in the above reply after you brought it up. I am not "hammering about", and have no need to make you look worse than you are. Fram (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - given the clear feeling here I'm more than happy for a voluntary topic ban for 3/6 months rollback on all edits covered by #5 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE (as that is the issue here). I've already removed the mass rollback tool regardless. I'd oppose any topic ban on rollbacks related to sock/clear vandalism (as that, as far as I am aware, not an issue). GiantSnowman 14:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Since you are clearly incapable of making the distinction between constructive and unconstructive edits, even after it has been pointed out to you repeatedly, I see little reason to let you continue to use rollback for "clear vandalism" either. Your previous promises and voluntary restrictions were worth nothing at all, you had plenty of chances to convince us that you could be trusted with such, but enough is enough. Fram (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I am not "clearly incapable". Unless you also have issue with eg this? Some of my reverts that you have an issue with have been supported by other admins above. I said I'd be more careful, I thought I was, other disagreed, so I'm voluntarily stepping out of it. GiantSnowman 14:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
      • That you also revert unconstructive edits is hardly evidence that you are capable of the distinction. You certainly haven't applied the distinction recently, or we wouldn't be here. You may be "voluntary" stepping out of whatever you want, this won't stop the well deserved involuntary topic ban though. As far as I can tell, the "supported by other admins above" is actually reverts which have been condemned by all editors, admins and non-admins alike, apart from Drmies, whose judgment or impartiality I seriously doubt. Fram (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Not sure how I can prove a negative (ie that I have aplied the distinction by not mass rollbacking edits...). Also going to @Drmies: to let him come defend himself. GiantSnowman 14:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You already proved you can't tell the difference, or can't be bothered to check, between good faith edits and unconstructive ones with the 480 rollbacks highlighted in this section. I have no issue with Drimes, whose statement has been taken out of context here. I suggest readimg to the end of the rollback policy. Legacypac (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• I would entirely support a topic ban. Super Mario effect: if GS were not an admin, they would be blocked by now. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• GS is not a newbie. They are expected to know when and how rollback is meant to be used. A new or inexperienced editor - certainly a non-admin - would have had their ability to rollback edits removed at the *start* of the above dicussion. I cannot see from all of the above they actually do understand that its for vandalism and if they are unwilling to manually check it is vandalism (absent any obvious indicators like identical edits etc), that they cant use rollback to do it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually there are 5 uses allowed at WP:ROLLBACKUSE, not just vandalism... GiantSnowman 18:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Have you read beyond the 5 uses to "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes ... is likely to be considered misuse of the tool." or "Administrators may revoke the rollback privilege or issue a block in response to a persistent failure to explain reverts, regardless of the means used." Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and as I've explained multiple times, I (mistakenly) thought these edits were covered by #5. GiantSnowman 19:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Everyone. Let's keep this in perspective. I note that GS has removed the subject script from his CSS, and self-reverted, and is contacting the IP to smooth things over. We're all here to build a better encyclopedia. I would like to see GS adjust his understanding of some of our policies, and I believe he has taken concrete steps in that direction. By all means, let's continue the discussion, but I believe any discussion of formal sanctions may be premature given that he's making a good-faith effort to get it right. UninvitedCompany 19:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, a topic ban from using mass rollback at this point would not prevent anything, as the tool has been removed (I would expect, and hope, for good). A topic ban from using regular rollback would not be appropriate, as there’s been no evidence of incompetence with that. I am sure GS is aware people will be keeping an eye on his future use of common or garden rollback. Fish+Karate 19:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks both for some sanity in this discussion. GiantSnowman 19:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The topic ban is not "from using mass rollback", it is from using any form of rollback. The only sanity needed here is the sanity to treat admins like we would treat anyone else, isntead of giving them preferential treatment (well, to be fair, giving out a second and third chance already was preferential treatment...). The edits from the "Time for a formal restriction?" section were, as far as I can tell, normal rollback, not mass rollback. They should have been aware that "people will be keeping an eye on his future use of common or garden rollback." was true the last few days already, and that didn't help one bit. The circling of the wagons to defend a fellow admin against applying perfectly normal, nah lenient restrictions is not "keeping things in perspective" or "some sanity" (indicating that they still don't get the problem with their edits, apparently the remainder of the discussion and the proposed topic ban was 'not sanity???), it is the kind of behaviour that disgusts many non-admins and others who don't like double standards. Fram (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about everyone else, but I've always been a pretty big fan of applying interaction strategies like forbearance, understanding, and appreciation for incremental improvement with non-admins, too. Yesterday, I was concerned that GS didn't get it. Today, I believe he does get it. Tomorrow (and in future), I will be watching, and I am confident many others will be as well. I hope (and expect) that there will be nothing interesting to see. UninvitedCompany 21:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

There has been no incremental improvement, they consider this whole topic ban discussion as a lack of sanity and nothing but misinformation and misrepresentation on behalf of those proposing or supporting it apparently, instead of showing any indication that they were at fault here. They have consistently minimalized their problems, going so far as to drop whole episodes from their summary of what happened; they try to keep it contained to "mass rollback" now, when their regulare rollback has the exact same problems (but of course doesn't do 480 edits per minute or so). They show no understanding that what they claim are disruptive edits are actually helpful edits. They have not done anything to correct the situation with most editors identified as being the victim of their rollabck campaigns, they can't even be trusted to accurately revert their own edits in this latest installment as they can't find any unreverted ones in their edits apparently. Instead of "good boy, don't do it again, off you go!", we should be looking at a total lack of competency or trustworthiness by now. If your attitude prevails, it won't be long until we are here again, with more newbies scared off and more time wasted. Fram (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

When a non-Admin screws up once [22] Legacypac (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• That's ... actually a good point. To be fair, the admin who removed the page mover right in that thread has been advocating for more robust action here than many others. Similarly, I imagine if Uninvited Company, who has been suggesting forbearance here, had closed that thread, it would have been with a warning rather than a permission removal. But yes, the difference in approach is jarring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  The difference in approach matters far less than fundamental facts and the end results, which are very similar ..

  Seraphim System misused the page mover right. A thread was started on AN about it. Seraphim System initially showed a failure to understand they had done anything wrong. Seraphim System no longer has the page user right.

  GiantSnowman misused the mass rollback script. A thread was started on ANI about it. GiantSnowman initially showed a failure to understand they had done anything wrong. GiantSnowman no longer has the mass rollback script.

  @Fram: If you can show me a smidgen of evidence that GS has misused regular rollback in the same way I will change my views on this, but at present all the diffs that have been presented concerned GS's poor use of the mass rollback script, so I don't see what non-punitive benefits a full restriction on rollback would achieve. Fish+Karate 09:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Wrong User:Fish and karate uninstalling a script that makes rollback easier does not solve the problem that GS is abusing editors with rollback, whicj remains available to them in Twinkle. Maybe this needs to go to ArbComm because the Admin team can't seem to deal with one of their own the same way they would deal with any other editor. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• How can one tell if edits like this one, mentioned above, have been made using regular or mass rollback? When hundreds of edits have been made in a minute, it's obviously mass rollback, but otherwise? And these individual rollbacks are not less problematic of course. Fram (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  All that being said, @GiantSnowman:, you said you had undone all 480 of the last wave of inappropriate mass reversions, but Fram has provided a number of instances where you have not done so. Please address these and any others that you must have missed by accident. [23][24][25][26][27][28] Fish+Karate 09:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  As I said above, I went through my contribs and rollbacked eveyrhting in there. I am unsure why some would not appear. I'll try again for the third time. GiantSnowman 10:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Right, what I think happened is that wgen I reverted 50 edits, and then clicked 'next 50' on my contribs paged, it took those 50 reverts into account and then bypassed the next 50 contribs (so basically I was reverting every other 50). I've got around that by viewing 500 at a time and refreshing the browser before moving on. Think I've got them all now? (famous last words). PS nice to see Fram AGFing as per usual... GiantSnowman 10:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking back at the edits of the 6th (whether one can see the difference between regular and mass rollback), I noticed this edit. Giantsnowman again reverts an edit (regular undo, not rollback, which is why I didn't check it until now), making the article actively worse again, and goes on to block the editor for three months. This is a helpful editor, adding correct information, but not in the way GS would like it, so it's revert and block. He previously warned the editor for vandalism for this edit, where he updated the page with correct information, but while doing this changed an inline ref to an external link. Wow, truly blockworthy vandalism! When the editor added his info back, but now kept the inline ref[29], GS reverted them again (not noticing it as such in the edit summary though), removing good information[30]. They then readded the same information in their next two edits. Basically, a series of useless edits, coupled with reversions and a seriously over the top vandal warning.

It looks as if the main problem is not the use of rollback (mass or otherwise), although that was the most obvious symptom. The main problem is the extreme protectiveness and heavy-handedness which Giant Snowman uses to defend his project, WP:FOOTBALL, against every edit which isn't exactly the way he likes it, using all available tools (rollback, vandal warnings, blocks, ...) to get the upper hand. Fram (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You have an issue with me blocking an editor with an exceptionally long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, after he had been warned multiple times, and after he had adding unsourced content again to a BLP? OK... @Vanjagenije: reviewed the block and said it was good. Fram, what is your actual problem with me? All of your last 20-30 edits have been about me. I'd be flattered if I wasn't disturbed. GiantSnowman 11:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

My issue with you? I hoped that would be clear from the above. The more I look at your edits and editor interactions, the more problems I encounter. The one you blocked? Look at his edits before your block: Sourced, unreverted. Sourced, unreverted. Sourced, unreverted. Sourced, unreverted... Now, in the one you blocked him for, he did the exact same thing as in the others, with the same edit summary, but he forgot to add the source (a source which he indicated in his edit summary, just like in those other edits where he did include that source). That's the text book example of a good faith small mistake by a good faith, constructive editor who tries to edit in the way you want. But that one small mistake is enough for you to go back to using the banhammer. This is a terrible block, and I have no idea why another admin saw fit to upheld it (the unblock request was snot really worded in the best way, but the reviewing admin should have looked at the context as well...). Fram (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll repeat - this was an editor with a long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, who had been blocked before and warned multiple times but continued to add unsourced content. The fact that some of his other edits were sourced is irrelevant. The block was reviewed and upheld. GiantSnowman 11:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"The fact that some of his other edits were sourced is irrelevant." The fact that the edits (as Fram has pointed out) that preceded your block bar one were sourced is irrelevant? What fucking planet are you on? That is a disgraceful attitude for an admin. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Gotta go with Fram here, terrible block no matter how you spin it. I'm happy to see user like him doing the little (dirty) work, updating lesser known player and keeping it up to date as much as possible. He added the WorldFootball template as source, which is fine. Blocking him the moment he forgot it once is not a good way... Fodbold-fan (talk · contribs) was another one, updating per given source in the article or adding new ones, forgotten that and blocked. If i missed anything in the process i'm sorry... Kante4 (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Popping back briefly while I have 10 mins...my wording was poor, apoloigies. They were editors with a poor track record of adding unsourced content to BLPs who continued to add unsourced content, despite warnings. The blocks were merited. GiantSnowman 09:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

From what I can see, the "unsourced content added to BLPs" is entirely made up from standard football statistics. They all appear to be true, but not presented in the way you like (some debates about inline cites versus external links), or sometimes without making the source explict. BLP seems a complete non-issue here, and using that to defend your block just makes you look silly in my view. —Kusma (t·c) 10:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If (as Kusma says) that stuff was uncontentious football statistics that appear to be correct, then calling it adding unsourced content to BLP's sounds like the incident with Kww and movie actor awards a while back. And we know how that turned out. BLP's don't create carte blanche for you to revert and block people because you feel like it. I think we're past the point of wikilawyering (trying to justify your actions in terms of wiki policy) being relevant. Your judgment is looking poor regardless of what policy says. So imho it's better if you stop talking about policy and instead focus on outcomes. Reverting valid edits is a bad outcome. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we need to restrict not nust rollback but "undo". It has become very clear GS can't tell a constructive controbution from an unconstructive one. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

If that's really the case it's better to restrict reversions in general. I haven't examined enough of these to say we are there yet, but it doesn't sound good. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Anything topic-specific that we should be aware of e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football

I know very little about football and even less about any conventions or expectations in this topic area in Wikipedia. Could someone knowledgable comment on whether there is any sort of topic-specific expectations or community norms that might help contextualize this discussion? UninvitedCompany 22:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

? I've worked a fair bit with WikiProject Football, I have monitored this whole chat against GS, but I am not sure what you're looking for, there is a lot of good and bad, but I do agree that GS has gone pretty Dark Side for a while. However I feel you need to give up on this witch hunt. Govvy (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You agree that GS is doing something wrong (to the point of saying he's on the "Dark Side"), but you would like UninvitedCompany to stop trying to get him to stop? I don't follow your logic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: I actually wanted to say more stuff but at times I have felt admins look out for admins. I feel GS is good for wikipedia, however he needs to get back to basics, create articles, work on the projects and improve articles. He has been very helpful for the Football project, however I don't think he needs admin privileges for that. Being an admin requires a strong mental balance in my opinion and at present, I am not sure GS has that. There seems be a big lack of judgement, very often I see an edit get reverted, when really, it it requires is a simple fix to improve on the edit instead of reverting. Lack of ettiequte to other users and wikipedia, instead of removing huge chucks of articles, instead use the {{cn}} and give others a chance to source the content. Well, that my opinion anyway. Govvy (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP - "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing". GiantSnowman 12:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

There we go again, using your Vulcan logic, and 90% of the time it's hardly contentious material that you remove. Simple etiquette if you had any would be to cn tag, and wait two weeks and then remove if its not improved. Quite often I wonder why you don't bother getting the source yourself. You have gotten lazy my friend, and using that automated script, that's being a lazy admin. Govvy (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Just like "unhelpful to the encyclopedia", it seems that "contentious" is also something you interpret completely different to nearly every other editor here. The material you removed (rollbacked, reverted, ...) was not questionable or contentious, it was an editor adding well-sourced information to many articles, and forgetting to add the source in one edit, but without any problem with the contents of the edit otherwise. But apparently it is sufficient to add the source in the edit summary for some people[31], but for others this is blockworthy behaviour? Some animals are more equal than the others? Fram (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I agree with Govvy. There's a reason for the word contentious appearing in BLP. Simple updating of statistics is hardly a contentious edit. If the statistics are already in the article, it's a reasonable assumption that the source for the previous statistic is the source for the current statistic, unless verification fails. Again, WP:BLPSOURCE only requires inline citations for contentious edits. A table of statistics is unlikely to require that treatment, in my opinion. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

My spot checks of rolled back edits found uncontroversial things like additions of missing jersey numbers, additions and deletions of players from current squad lists, and similar minor incremental efforts. Should every edit be sourced? Yes, but sources on the page might support the edit, and this is not what BLP policy is supposed to protect against. If an IP is found adding false info deal with them, but we WP:AGF until proven otherwise. We don't nuke 480 good edits for no valid reason and block the other editor. Legacypac (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Solution time -- and a question about GS's blocks

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

---

I think it's time we get focused on whether adequate solutions are in place vis-a-vis GiantSnowman. Clearly the mass reverts were way out of bounds, and he has deleted that script. In terms of regular Rollback, is his use of it currently or foreseeably problematic? If so, do we need a sanction/restriction? More important, in my mind, are the egregious blocks that have accompanied many of these instances, many if not most of which were unwarranted and an abuse of admin tools. What can be done to prevent this in the future? Normally we require admins to bring even remotely tenuous or WP:INVOLVED cases to ANI or AIV rather than allowing them to block the editor themselves. Should we put in place a formal requirement that GS report to ANI or AIV, rather than block editors he has reverted? I think this would be a good idea. Softlavender (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm in favor of flat out desysopping. There are plenty of administrators who have shown they're capable of working without abusing tools and their powers. Jtrainor (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, an ArbCom case has just been opened: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GiantSnowman. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• I've been watching this unfold from the sidelines, and I think it's possible we're being too hasty. The mass-rollback use was clearly problematic, but GS has undertaken not to use that script any longer (and I wouldn't be opposed to formalizing that distinction). It's not yet clear to me that GS has abused regular rollback, but even if he has, I don't think we should be looking to restrict it, for the following reason. It's actually fairly easy to misuse mass rollback; all it requires is for someone not to check all contributions after finding a few that are problematic. If (and that's a genuine if: I'm not yet certain) GS's uses of regular rollback are an issue, then what we're seeing is not tool misuse or carelessness but an inability to judge the difference between vandalism, cluelessness, and genuinely helpful but badly executed editing. And if that is the case, ARBCOM is the way to go, because that judgement is a pretty fundamental part of being an admin. I, personally, would like to allow GS some time to reflect on the feedback they have received here, before dragging them to ARBCOM; but requesting arbitration does not require consensus here, so obviously anyone is free to do that. For the reasons above, I would oppose a restriction of the sort you, Softlavender are, proposing. Vanamonde (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think you've understood or addressed the issue, Vanamonde. It's the blocks, not the rollback. Softlavender (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Softlavender: I may not have mentioned the blocks, but I was well aware of them, and the same reasoning applies. Anti-vandalism blocks are the simplest of admin tasks. If GS no longer has the judgement to perform those properly (which includes judging when not to block), then they need to be desysopped, and no restriction is good enough. If, on the other hand, the blocks were non-problematic or GS recognizes that they were problematic, I would again recommend probation, not restriction. Vanamonde (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      • These blocks were not anti-vandalism blocks, yet GS still insists they were merited. Softlavender (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• I do not feel I was INVOLVED - if I was then I wouldn't have acted. See "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved". These were not me abusing tools as part of a content dispute or anything like that. This was me noticing an editor(s) adding unsourced content to articles mainly (BLPs) (given these articles are on my watchlist) and then reverting, warning, and blocking when they continued. If people disagree and feel that I was INVOLVED then I will happily take a step back in future and raise at AIV/ANI etc if required. GiantSnowman 10:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Fram and others (Fram, Kante4, Kusma) have expressed concerns that the blocks discussed in this thread were unwarranted, that the editors were acting in good faith and improving the articles in question, and that you were blocking good contributors and good-faith editors (in addition to rolling back dozens or hundreds of their helpful edits). We absolutely cannot allow that to continue -- we have enough problems with editor retention already. Since you apparently have trouble discerning good-faith from bad-faith editors, and good-faith from bad-faith edits, and improvements from vandalism, and indeed have trouble identifying what vandalism actually is, I feel there probably need to be safeguards in place to prevent your blocking good-faith editors. In particular, if it is merely a case of someone adding unsourced content, even to BLPs, and even repeatedly, you should bring the case to ANI rather than blocking the person yourself. It's OK to notify and warn, it's not OK to to be judge, jury, and executioner, unless it is a case of clear-cut VOA. That is my sense in any case, especially since several editors have agreed that the various blocks discussed in this overall thread (many of which were not even about BLPs) were not warranted. Softlavender (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Based on this discussion I acknowledge that I might have a stricter interpretation of BLP (quoted in above sub-section) than is needed. If that's the general feeling then I'm happy to (after reverting and warning) raise persistent violators at ANI rather than block them myself. GiantSnowman 12:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      • It's not just so-called BLP-violators. It's any editor you have reverted. Many of those you blocked noted by Fram (and others) had nothing to do with BLPs. Softlavender (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      • No, that's not sufficient at all. Things you need to do include: going over all problems raised here (the individual cases, and similar cases you may have done in the past few months), recheck your actions against the feedback you have received here, and act upon it: revert yourself if your rollback was too harsh, explain to people why you rollbacked and why you reverted, unblock editors still blocked, and so on. And for future similar cases, you should not be "reverting and warning", you should improve the constructive edits other make. The only things that need reverting and warning are actual errors (or actual socking or vandalism of course), not good faith improvements where e.g. the source is only included in the edit summary (like here). Most of the cases raised here didn't need "reverting and warning", they needed encouragement, perhaps some tips, but nothing else. Fram (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Since several Admins have tried to shut this effort to have an WP:ADMINACCT by closing sections or posting excuses under the Super Mario Effect I have posted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GiantSnowman. Sad to have to do this but if any normal user was pulling these stunts they would be blocked by now. Legacypac (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems premature to do that while this thread is still open though.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

ANi can't remove Admin tools (a possible outcome) and the circle the wagons for an Admin that has been happening here make a case necessary. Legacypac (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

References

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

Procedural question about ANI, Arbcom, and closing discussions

I do not want to reopen any discussion about GS, but rather wish to discuss a purely procedural question.

It is common practice to close any ANI report about an admin as soon as it is sent to Arbcom. On the face of it, this seems like an obvious choice, but is it really?

If Arbcom is in the habit of [A] issuing blocks without desysopping (for actions which would get any ordinary user blocked) [B] issuing desysops without blocks (for actions that only involve misuse of tools and thus are prevented by the desysopping) and [C] issuing blocks along with desysopping (for actions that fit A and B), then yes, the ANI case should be closed. I don't watch most arbcom cases, but my impression is that they mostly do B, never A, and seldom C.

If my impression is correct, then closing the ANI case would appear to lead to the WP:Super Mario Effect. Assuming that at least some participants in the discussion think a block is justified (see B above), two possible alternatives to closing the ANI case come to mind: [1] (my first choice) put the ANI case on hold until Arbcom closes their case and then continue discussing the possible block, or [2] Continuing the block discussion while Arbcom has their desysop discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by Beyond My Ken is one example of the (quite reasonable) assumption that Arbcom only deals with desysopping and leaves any blocks for the same behavior to ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that was the intended purpose of my comment. I was (and am) concerned with understanding exactly what GS is being accused of. Folks seem to be discussing misuse of admin tools, but I wasn't (and still amn't) seeing any explicit evidence of that, so I asked for more information, which -- so far, at least -- hasn't been provided. If there is no actual evidence of the misuse of admin tools, then I probably will have more to say about the Request for Arbitration, but, in any case, I'm aware that ArbCom can do everything from "reminding" through "admonishing" and de-sysopping and/or blocking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I opened the arb case because only Arbcomm can romove tools (which may or may not be required but is under discussion) and it is exceedingly hard to get Admins to issue blocks/topic bans/sanctions against another Admin. The discussion includes a number of votes to prohibit use of rollback but several Admins have dismissed that emerging consensus. I do not agree that the ANi should be closed down, especially since zero Arbs have accepted the case. Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Another possible alternative: keep the ANI case open until the arbs actually accept a case, and don't allow the fact that it has been brought to arbcom for desysopping be used as a reason to prevent any ANI discussion regarding blocking or topic bans.

Re: admins dismissing an emerging consensus, I think that is best dealt with in a separate discussion. Perhaps Arbcom will address it. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather we close the ANI threads while the arb request is pending. If the request is declined, or if there's still something to do after a case is opened and completed, we can open a new ANI or AN thread. That is just the traditional principle of centralizing drama. I'm in favor of a case opening so that GS's alleged long history of bad reverts can (if it exists) be examined in a structured evidence section. That examination will provide a clearer perspective about what to do next than we can reach here at ANI. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Saying "if there's still something to do after a case is opened and completed, we can open a new ANI or AN thread" sounds good in theory, but if you actually try it after arbcom desysops someone the Super Mario Effect will kick in and the attempt will be closed quicker than a politician decides that whatever the other team likes is evil. Some here are not satisfied with expressing the opinion that recently desysopped admins have "suffered enough" and should not be blocked even temporarily; they insist on shutting down any discussion that might end up with a consensus they don't like. (Oddly enough, those who have recently failed RfA don't get the same treatment, even though they also were just denied adminship and even though their "suffering" is far worse). If something is blockworthy it should still be blockworthy after abcom is done (with the obvious exception of situations where arbcom makes it impossible to re-offend, such as an admin who misused his tools but otherwise did nothing blockworthy and had the tools removed.) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has suggested blocking SG. Discussion has been about desysopping, restricting his use of rollback/undo, or (my preference) ignoring the technical means and restricting reverts per se. It looks like the arb case is heading towards acceptance. If a case opens we're at least a month away from it being completed. I'm not worried about Super Mario. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

SG = Snowman Gigantesque? EEng 21:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Possible hoax on Syed Soleman Shah

Editors are adding different languages and calendars to the article, completely inappropriate. LivTheAlpaca (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A speedy deletion may be needed here, not sure what makes this person WP:NOTABLE. IWI (chat) 23:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I’ve tried to remove some of the nonsense but Innocentbadshah (talk · contribs) is now edit warring. IWI (chat) 23:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

If a book written in foreign language and can not be translated yet to English and also not available online,,, so how should be cote that where we need it??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentbadshah (talk • contribs) 23:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The sources are questionable; I think this page may be a hoax. Could I have some input from more experienced editors? IWI (chat) 00:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) It's fine to use non-English sources, although English sources are preferred if they exist. This isn't nonsense, ImprovedWikiImprovment; it is the ancestors of the article subject. Whether it's worth mentioning in the article is a content dispute, and should be discussed at the article's talk page, not edit-warred over... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 00:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I've struck part of the above comment as it sounded like IWI needed to go to the talk page, which they already had. Sorry, ImprovedWikiImprovment. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 06:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I also had a conversation about it on their talk page. A haven’t reverted again so just by looking at the article you’ll see the major issue with it. And I’m nearly certain that it’s either a hoax or not notable. IWI (chat) 09:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything that's not in English in the article other than citations. I also don't agree that being in Hijri calendar is a good reason to remove a date; instead it would be better to add the CE equivalent: "Other era systems may be appropriate in an article. In such cases, dates should be followed by a conversion to Dionysian (or vice versa) and the first instance should be linked" (MOS:ERA). In terms of being a hoax, maybe so, but at least the books linked are real (I haven't been able to check their contents, though). By the way, what is the agreement mentioned here? Also, why on earth is this inappropriate?! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 12:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The removal of the speedy deletion tag was an obvious thing to do; the user placed it there out of rage. The "rage agreement" was on the user's talk page and is visible. IWI (chat) 14:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Goldenshimmer:The text was non-English (including a different calendars), not just the sources. I can’t find anything in the subject, I think it’s a hoax. IWI (chat) 00:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The main concern was not the decendents section but the family section. His date of birth was given in a foreign language and I can’t find anything about this person. I don’t think they existed. IWI (chat) 00:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The 'owner' of the article having the same last name as the article subject makes me think this is a hoax article, probably with the same name as our hoaxster. I can't find any of the sources, but given the article has been around for a while I don't think speedy deletion is the way to go as it's not a 'blatant' hoax, so it needs to go to AFD, for failing WP:V. Fish+Karate 12:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Now at AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Soleman Shah. Fish+Karate 12:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It’s terrible that this article has been here since 2011. The author appears to have made other articles that are hoaxes in the past. On the basis of WP:NOTHERE, I suggest an indefinite block. IWI (chat) 13:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate, Goldenshimmer, and LivTheAlpaca: I’m concerned that all articles they have created may either be hoaxes or not notable, such as Syed Muhammad Masood. IWI (chat) 14:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I would like to not jump to conclusions. One article is at AFD, where it will have 7 days to be discussed and the veracity or lack thereof of these sources can be reviewed. If that's proven to be ropey then other articles can be addressed. I have asked the relevant Wikiproject for the language (Pashto) to see if the scanty sources which are provided are in any way relevant. Fish+Karate 14:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is the list of page creations, ignoring any they may have created using IP addresses. IWI (chat) 14:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• I suppose it is possible this is a hoax; Google translate says this is Urdu (or maybe F&K is right and it's Pashto, I don't even know that), and I don't speak it any more than F&K or IWI. More investigation is needed. But User:ImprovedWikiImprovment is making a serious rush to judgement, and suggesting an indefinite block at this stage, before we really know what is going on, is exactly the kind of behavior I think should be prevented at ANI with liberal application of topic bans. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  What he said. The sources are a mix of languages including Urdu, Pashto, and Arabic and mostly PDFs so not really translatable for non-speakers (as Google Translate, which isn't great but can at least give you a sense of what something says, can't do PDFs). We have to be careful not to expect perfect English sources for every article, and we should try to encourage articles on non-English topics, to try and address cultural bias. I hope this is not a hoax. Fish+Karate 14:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, allow me to rephrase: if this is a hoax we should A. Indef the user and B. Check the other articles they have created. IWI (chat) 14:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Consider what a user said on the page’s talk page back in 2016; doesn’t prove anything but just shows this isn’t the first time an editor has had a concern about the article. IWI (chat) 15:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Just be careful and destroy all my articles and contributions to Wikipedia!!! What the non-sense is going here with me! Delete my user page and my contributions. No need to waste my energy on a platform reviewed and administrate by such group of people who even not aware of a language and using abusive language about other peoples living in world with different lifestyles then their! Thanks and bye bye! Syed Saqib Imad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentbadshah (talk • contribs) 02:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• So we do or don't need to review this editor's other creations? EEng 05:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: Yes, we do; it has been confirmed on the deletion discussion that none of the references discuss it's subject, it’s therefore probably a hoax. We need to check all of them, as well as articles the same person as clearly created on IP addresses and other accounts. IWI (chat) 20:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTHERE ("Little or no interest in working collaboratively", "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia", "Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods"), I suggest, but DO NOT insist on an indefinite block. Creating several fake pages (if it turns out to be the case) that have stayed here for seven years is exactly the kind of behaviour that damages the overall reliability of the encyclopedia. IWI (chat) 21:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• An Arabic speaker has now checked the sources within Syed Soleman Shah and confirmed they don't mention the subject. Copied over from the AFD: the other articles, all of which look at first glance to have the same issues:
  • Gesudaraz I
  • Syed Adam Banuri
  • Syed Ali ibn Ismail
  • Syed Jafar al-Qa’im
  • Syed Muhammad Masood
  • Ali ibn Ismail
  • Syed Muhammad Tayyab Shah
  • Sheikh Isa Mashwani
  • Syed Muhammad Ahmad Shah
  • Syed Faateh
  • Syed Qaaf

A couple of these have had speedies / prods declined in the past. @EEng:, I say thee yes, these need to be reviewed. Fish+Karate 10:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I was just raising the question lest the thread get prematurely archived. Someone else will need to pursue it. Lazy today. EEng 15:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I have a theory: they may be the user's ancestors, which would explain why they have the same name. IWI (chat) 18:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• So, indef the editor and nuke all of the creations? If indeed they turn out to be hoaxes/relatives? Softlavender (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Definitely, this kind of behaviour is blatantly unencyclopedic and extremely disruptive; just look at how much time and how many editors are involved. They knew what they were doing, they are, undoubtedly more than any editor can be, WP:NOTHERE. IWI (chat) 19:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Ridiceo

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

This editor began editing roughly one month ago focused almost entirely on the Gab (social network) article. The thrust of their editing has been downplaying the association of the site with its far-right userbase. They're a very high content, high effort editor, and have filled sections and sections on the talk page with their opinions. From what I understand, they believe that the sources we are using are inherently opinion based if they describe something as 'far-right' e.g. 'For example, if a reliable source posts that "Far-right social network Gab", we don't include that Gab is "Far-right" simply because the author *thinks* it's far-right.' for several sources which describe Gab's user base as far-right. I don't generally agree with what they say, and I'd say most of the editors on the page don't either. Most recently, myself and two other editors who are perhaps similarly exhausted have each linked Ridiceo to the WP:DEADHORSE essay. This has not dissuaded them, and they continue to insist that what they would like to be done on the article be done, and continue to revert to their preferred version. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: I was just composing my ANEW report. Shall I go ahead and file it or copy the diffs I composed here? Tsumikiria (T/C) 07:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tsumikiria: Uh, I'm not sure what the protocol is here. Like, I genuinely have no clue - I think it's generally frowned upon to pursue these things in multiple avenues though, so copying here may be best. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• I interacted with them only briefly on that page, but they do at least clearly seem to be a WP:SPA dedicated to how Gab is portrayed. Something else that struck me: Their account made its first edit mere hours after Poolofthought was banned - and one of Poolofthought's final flurry of edits was to remove the same "known for its far-right userbase" verbage that Ridiceo has devoted most of their time here to objecting to. That, combined with the fact that Ridiceo seems fairly familiar with policies and editing for a new account, means it might be worth raising the issue at WP:SPI. It is hard to say for certain, though, since that article has seen a flurry of new or returning accounts focused on that general topic, which makes me suspect it was linked to somewhere or has otherwise attracted attention. --Aquillion (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Aquillion, I see no connection to Poolofthought--even their very language and edits seem different. Having said that, it is abundantly clear that a. this is not a new editor b. they are an SPA c. the smell of sea lions is overwhelming. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• I believe sufficient evidence suggests that the user Ridiceo is a single-purpose, agenda-driven, civil POV pusher. I'm the one interacted with this user most, so where do I even begin. Since Nov. 5, the user is entirely focused on Gab (social network) and Talk:Gab (social network). The user had relentlessly filibustered for the removal of below warred over content, and replacing them with soapbox "free speech aspect", starting from here: [32].

• Over the course of the month, more than half a dozen users had explained to him. But the user just kept posting edit requests and claimed that they had been ignored. When they finally got autocomfirmed, they engage in edit war. Whenever explaining to this user that their proposed content are OR or not supported by the dozens of URLs they listed, or just any criticism of the subject being in the article, they immediately turns up long comment citing NPOV, AGF, NPA, UNCENSORED, etc. They scrutinize on reasonable summary as not appearing in sources verbatim, accused the article of minimizing their POV, claimed well-supported content unsupported, and failed to quote any source that actually supported their proposed content. They deny posted/acted what they did, misrepresent policies and guidelines, and refused to concede when consensus was clearly not in his favor. It was excruciatingly frustrating to deal with this editor, so I was emotional at times.

• After a botched RfC failed to go their way [33], they immediately compiled a "list of my great wrongs", cherrypicking from all of my past postings on the page out of context to try to mischaracterize me as "POV railroading" and BATTLEGROUND, and prepared to level them against me all at once "just in case". Then they tried to turn this into a issue of my conduct on my talk page. After telling them NOTUNANIMITY, they warred again, and then we're here. I'm going off to sleep now. I can almost expect their response to be "These are all unsubstantiated!". Tsumikiria (T/C) 10:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The following was my draft for ANEW containing diffs of the user's edit warring over the last week. Peter was a little faster in filing ANI. Tsumikiria (T/C) 08:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh right, If you don't like how a user thinks, just report them on the ANI. And don't bother to mention that Here I seeked a dispute resolution process, and dont bother to mention that No time after that was the phrase i was calling to question ever mentioned again, nor was there any edit on it. Why? because I had conceded. But alas, it's being brought up in ANI. To scare me off of Wikipedia by constantly attacking me? By misrepresenting what i said.

You said "This editor began editing roughly one month ago focused almost entirely on the Gab (social network) article. The thrust of their editing has been downplaying the association of the site with its far-right userbase."

However, this isn't an accurate statement. I contested whether or not the association between Gab, and their far-right user base was supported/accepted. You provide no evidence of downplaying.

You said "From what I understand, they believe that the sources we are using are inherently opinion based if they describe something as 'far-right'"

This isn't an accurate representation of what I had stated, nor is your out-of-context quote showing any resemblance of that either. I was arguing that, just because an author says it, It doesn't mean it's a fact. Nothing about that statement implies that the sources are "inherently opinion based". This is simply an egregious accusation.

Not only after all of this, after I moved onto another subject. That subject was whether saying Gab was a "favorite" of the alt-right was appropriate language or even supported by the sources given. That discussion was started here, on December 5th: here. Weirdly, just barely a day later, I was told by another user to Drop the stick despite the discussion being started barely a day ago. How a discussion ends in 1 day is beyond me. And despite only being 4 days later, I've supposedly "beat the horse dead with the stick". And then I'm supposed to simply shut up? Less than a day, supposedly "consensus is against me" according to this user, then accused of manipulating the reliability of sources and POV pushing here, then consensus was made again (supposedly) here, and then accused of ignoring another user's argument, (whilst ironically, ignoring mine), then accusing me of interpreting factual reporting as opinion (i was not), then, (hyperlinked), you accuse me of stonewalling, (again, without evidence), then accuse me (hyperlinked) of gaslighting, again, without evidence. All in one post here. After back-to-back contradictions, you got sick of not being able to refute my points, so you accused me of beating a dead horse and told me to drop the stick on a discussion that started only 4 days ago. All whilst breaking Wikipedia Talk page guidelines, more specifically "Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." and WP:ASPERSIONS. I tried talking with you about it on your own talk page, but that resulted in you trying to [flip the discussion into a discussion about me] rather than agreeing to not engage in the behavior.

This behavior of yours, accusing others of misbehaving without evidence on an article talk page dates back. Here are some examples. On Talk:Gab_(social_network)/Archive_3

Unsubstantiated claims accusing another user of violating WP:OR. Tsumikiria states,

Oh! Gardening! Just because someone buys groceries doesn't alleviate their positions. not necessarily a goal of Gab but a side effect of free speech This is pure WP:OR. If you have no published, reliable, secondary sources to back this, there is no place for it on Wikipedia. Free speech does not mean someone can just spew their racist rant without taking consequences. The reports on Arxiv are quantitative study backed by data of real gab posts, and that's what we're going to use.

The message that this is in response to does not violate WP:OR. The message didn't encourage editing the article with original research, and it was in the talk page. WP:OR refers to content in the Wikipedia article, not necessarily the opinions of another Wikipedia editor.

Strawman, irrelevant discussion. Sensitive material means many users has reported the user in question. This is part of twitter's quality filter. Stop painting things unders misleading light.

Belittling another user by implying that they might want to white-wash the article.

If by there you mean we have to erase any mention of white supremacist membership and state up front that Gab is a completely innocent angel of free speech human rights etc, please, no.

On Talk:Gab_(social_network)/Archive_4 The message that this is in response to does not violate WP:OR. The message didn't encourage editing the article with original research, and it was in the talk page. WP:OR refers to content in the Wikipedia article, not necessarily the opinions of another Wikipedia editor.

Accusing another editor of blaming them for a shooting, and accusing them of straw manning, as well as shaming them for being a new user. Tsumikiria states in response to another user,

Oh you blame me for the shooting When did I say I endorse them Good job constructing a straw man, and congrats that this is your 5th ever edit on Wikipedia.

Implies a possible act of whitewashing, simply because another user was discussing Gab's possible new logo.

Whether or not is this a blatant whitewashing and cashing in attempt aside, it is pretty likely that this tragedy-inspired change will be temporary. And Wikipedia is not a place to document marketing stunts. Looks like Torba deleted the tweet introducing this logo after getting widely condemned. Maybe the event could be included in text if a reliable source wrote about this.

Implied that I wanted to mass remove sections.

The site's far-right users are the primary if not sole reason why it is notable. The whole article could be well removed if there is no mention to its users because it is a UGC and who care about some marketing languages. And it's not like the user section is the foremost section with 90% weight or something. We don't mass remove things like this.

Writes off discussion as Meaningless

This discussion is meaningless. We could as well write Twitter as antisemitic, if only they advertise to, align themselves to, and uses the same rhetoric as antisemites just like what Gab does.

And then further,

Insinuates that Gab is my favorite gathering place. Belittles me by saying that my opinion doesn't matter, and accuses me of calling into question the legitimacy of a quote by another article, and implies that I might be here to defend repugnant views.

It is understandable that you think your favorite gathering place is not getting good treatments, but your own opinion matters nothing to Wikipedia. And seeing you using quotation marks aroud the term antisemetic, if you are here to defend repugnant views that advocated for genocidal violence against Jewish people, or to question the classification of it as anti-Semitic, you might not be here to build an encyclopedia.

Accuses me of ignoring wikipedia guidelines, accuses me presenting opinions as facts, and accuses me of asserting that deplatforming is censorship.

This conversation can serve no further purpose if you continue to ignore basic Wikipedia guidelines on not presenting your own interpretations as facts. Your assertion that deplatforming is censorship is also not supported. We don't write something as facts because you think they are in line with definitions on Wikipedia. Reliable, authoritative sources have no overwheming support for such assertions. And yes, your further edit requests will be ignored and archived, if they are clear violations of Wikipedia guidelines.

Implying that I want to mass delete and doctor valid content, accuses me of creating a false balance, accuses me of filibustering, accuses me of white-washing, and again insinuates that Gab is my favorite website. The user also tells me I've contributed nothing, and am wasting everyone's time.

Impressive 11,000 text wall you've composed. No, we will not mass delete and doctor valid content and replace them with fig leaf free speech aspect that no reliable source treats seriously. You cannot create false balance out of thin air. Wikipedia policies does not back your filibustering that suggests a motive of whitewashing your favorite website. You have contributed nothing of value to the article or anywhere else on Wikipedia and please stop further wasting everyone's time

Accuses me of gaming the system, and accuses me of expecting people to reply to every single sentence I made.

The specific thing is that you are relentlessly gaming the system. You listed everything that doesn't submit to your own viewpoint and do you expect us to reply to every single sentence you listed Of course you're going to declare But you didn't respond to my points! Stop wasting time.

Again accuses me of filibustering in attempt to change the article, accuses me of soapboxing, and advocates that I be topic banned based on the allegation that I'm disruptive, and accuses me of bad faith editing.

absolutely overwhelming number of sources report Gab because of its far-right users. Phrase should be duly included in the first sentence. SPA RfC proposer has relentlessly filibustered to make the article submit to his free speech perspective soapboxing, as you can see in his latest 10-page essay above. Per Jorm, editor should be topic banned for being frustratingly disruptive and WP:NOTHERE.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to include everything. However this is a very obvious and egregious violation of basic Talk page guidelines. Ridiceo (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The Ridiceo account was created on November 5th, 2018. Within a few weeks, it's quoting obscure policies like WP:NOTHERE, WP:TPYES, and WP:ASPERSIONS (this one in particular is a dead giveaway that it's someone who's been to drama boards before). Per WP:DUCK, obviously not a new editor.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I just get around alot? Or maybe I reviewed the Wikipedia guidelines before I made account.

Spreading unsubstantiated allegations that I'm "not a new user" because I quoted policy you dont like. Check.

Im done with Wikipedia. Being dogpiled and accused left and right like this because of wrongthink isnt for me. This is my last edit, and I could care less what happens to my account. See ya. I might hop in another time to see what crazy new allegations you've made against me, but I wont respond. Ridiceo (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• The above wall of sea-lioning text is a pretty solid example of how this user operates: throwing out thousand page screeds of lawyering, never hearing other people, and demanding others do work for them. Followed by the "I quit" message, i think they're going to be back under a different name.--Jorm (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm glad that they finally published this list. The fact that this user kept a creepy attack page on me and hoped this could turn the tide whenever concerns against them are brought up, and attempted to block policy-based resolution by accusing everyone of thought policing on them followed by announcing rage quit just further illustrate how this user is inconceivably disruptive and not here to build an encyclopedia. I endorse a block, at the very least. Tsumikiria (T/C) 20:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Indef block

Based on the above, I'm proposing an indef block, per WP:NOTHERE. The editor said they were leaving anyway, so we might as well make it official. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support: as proposer. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support: User is not here for anything of value.--Jorm (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support: So the posterity can be freed from sockpuppets of this user. They earned it. Account was used solely for disruptive purpose and was gaming hard to drive off productive editors. Tsumikiria (T/C) 07:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It's reasonably clear that they're WP:NOTHERE per above. But, more importantly, given that it seems to have become a bit of a flashpoint for new editors drawn to it by Gab's controversies, it might be worthwhile for some experienced uninvolved editors to pay a bit more attention to Gab (social network) for a while. --Aquillion (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support As the dude who got annoyed enough by him to make an entire section about it at ANI. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too harsh. Follow the standard procedure of escalating blocks. I'll also note that there are conduct issues all around here. The page needs more admin attention rather than a disruptive majority ganging up on a disruptive minority. R2 (bleep) 18:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This is essentially a topic ban, which is necessary here per WP:IDHT. I'm not convinced that there is any sockpuppetry going on, purely because Ridiceo did not try to get the autoconfirmed user right before coming to this contentious subject. I'm surprised that they weren't already sanctioned since the Gab article is under APDS, and Ridiceo has been warned about APDS quite early on [34]. I'm not happy about the wiki-lawyering by some users above, but I don't support sanctioning anyone else for the time being (although I'm not watching or editing the Gab article, and I'm just commenting here because I've had previous conflict with this user). wumbolo ^^^ 19:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article needs improvement. There are effectively 3 very active editors there: Ridiceo, Tsumikiria and PeterTheFourth. I've participated but much less. It may not come as a shock that Tsumikiria and PeterTheFourth have been on the opposite side of edits from Ridiceo and now !vote to ban him. Ridiceo hasn't broken any rules and has a clean block log. We don't go from no warnings and no blocks straight to an indef for "too many talk page posts." For comparison Tsumikiria broke 3RR, which I warned him about but didn't report. Ridiceo is new and should be helped, like this. Consensus means balancing interests per policy not bullying opponents off the site. D.Creish (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• D.Creish, let's not talk about your series of underexplained reverts that changed content to what Ridiceo warred about and removed sourced paraphrase and copyedits. All I did was to stop both of you. I note that you have not tried to reach a consensus and discuss with the rest of us, until just now, for your joint operation with Ridiceo. Now that you reverted again. You're putting yourself in a dangerous position. Tsumikiria (T/C) 22:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I complain the article is a WP:BATTLEGROUND and your response is All I did was to stop both of you and You're putting yourself in a dangerous position. Not encouraging. D.Creish (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I could not have summed it up better than D.Creish did here. Well, no. Ridiceo did break the rules by repeatedly failing to drop the stick when consensus was against them. But I agree with the rest of D.Creish's assessment. R2 (bleep) 21:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support per proposer and Jorm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely WP:NOTHERE; only here to relentlessly push a very skewed and idiosyncratic POV. Far too much exhausting DE. Softlavender (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Here to push far-right POV BS. oknazevad (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: Ridiceo has apparently not quit as they said they would so this still needs dealing with.--Jorm (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm shocked, he made an edit to close an rfc after someone requested that they do it! This user definitely needs a block because they might disrupt our echo chamber by making a single rudimentary edit to a talk page! /s

Imagine how childish you have to be to have this thought process, not to mention accusing me of sockpuppetry, accusing me of not being a new user, and accusing me of colluding with D.Creish, And saying i'll "come back under another name"

Yeah, and dont mention that in that single edit, I openly admitted to the consensus being "known for it's far-right user base"

It's specifically users like you that repeatedly accuse others of wrongdoing, even for such unimportant edits like the one you cited, which is why I'm no longer going to edit on Wikipedia. I'm done. Kiss my ass. Ridiceo (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Ridiceo reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: )

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

---

Page: Gab (social network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ridiceo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 2018-11-30T11:18:45
2. diff 2018-11-30T12:49:42
3. diff 2018-11-30T13:02:18
4. diff 2018-12-05T08:18:55
5. diff 2018-12-05T09:10:15
6. diff 2018-12-05T09:40:56
7. diff 2018-12-05T09:41:50
8. diff 2018-12-05T13:59:22
9. diff 2018-12-05T16:25:30
10. diff 2018-12-05T16:51:41
11. diff 2018-12-06T00:49:42
12. diff 2018-12-06T00:58:40
13. diff 2018-12-06T01:00:57
14. diff 2018-12-06T01:03:43
15. diff 2018-12-06T01:07:01
16. diff 2018-12-09T01:37:51
17. diff 2018-12-09T01:44:48

1. Repeatedly removed well sourced, consensus content: "known for its far-right user base"
2. Repeatedly removed well sourced, consensus content: "The platform itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary."
3. Repeatedly replaced well sourced, verified content "The site is a favorite of far right" into "The site has become increasingly more popular with far right"
4. Repeatedly inserted {CN} tag to unwarrantedly undermine well-sourced content
5. Repeatedly unwarrantedly replaced or removed due weight content from verified sources to confrom with POV "softer tone"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35] [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff No, actually, the entire talk page. All of us have been in conversation and trying to resolve this issue with the user for weeks, to no avail.

Comments:

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

Legal threat by User:Brees4

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

---

I came across a clear legal threat here by User:Brees4. I gave him a warning about making legal threats, but I haven't dealt with this enough to know what other steps are normally taken. Sounds like we normally block the user in cases of clear legal threats? Looking for input from admins who deal with this more regularly. Thanks.--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The article in question is Tyreek Burwell, and the blocked account was edit warring to remove some content that almost certainly violates BLP policy. The block is proper but the BLP concerns are real. More eyes are needed on that article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

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

uhuh..just been going through it..not a single ref refers to Tyreek, muh less states he was involved; none of them state the person was even his sister!! There have been Ips waring to get that stuff out for months, and editors have just been blindly reverting..Curdle (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

oops I see its closed, still, this does bear discussing I think..Curdle (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com is the person who added the content; he's definitely experienced to know better and that is quite the WP:COATRACK and problematic for a BLP, definitely warrants attention; not sure why so many different editors restored it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

For the time being, Cullen328 removed the paragraph, and I left a note on the talk page explaining why it is a BLP violation. If appropriate sources have been found though which relate the subject of the article to this information it can be restored.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Apologies - I was one of the people blindly reverting. I saw citations to respectable news outlets and assumed that this was a POV-pusher wanting negative information removed from the page, but I should have checked more carefully. Thanks Cullen328 for doing what I should have done in the first place. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Girth Summit:, just FYI, the Washington Times might look like a reliable source at quick glance, but it isn't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Floquenbeam. I'm not as familiar with US newspapers as I am with UK ones - I think I saw 'Washington Times' and thought 'Washington Post'. I accept that I should have looked into this more closely, and I'll be more careful in future with this sort of thing. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Rms125a@hotmail.com, I'm sorry, but what were you thinking? Sourcing and framing etc. set aside, what on earth made you think it was OK to drag this into a BLP? Drmies (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Rms125a@hotmail.com hasn't edited in a week. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

This is about the Tyreek Burwell page, I presume. I had the page watchlisted and noticed, albeit belatedly, that sourced text had been removed. Like @Cullen328, I "assumed that this was a POV-pusher wanting negative information removed from the page", as I have seen occur so often. I did not realize that restoring it --- despite and I'll say it before you bring it up --- all my years of editing --- that this action constituted WP:COATRACK. Apologies to all. I will remove the page from my watchlist. I will just point out that these reliable local websites (https://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/Witness-threatened-after-UAlbany-bus-incident-was-6861347.php, https://www.news10.com/news/ualbany-students-claiming-to-be-victims-of-racial-bus-attack-to-face-charges/1108250835) still carry the story and the claims about Tyreek Burwell as well as the Daily Beast and several right-of-center sites that I know don't carry much weight here. Have they all been threatened with legal action? I wonder. Quis separabit? 01:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com AKA Quis separabit?, you described my involvement incorrectly. I removed the BLP violating content, I did not restore it. You also described your own role incorrectly. I just spent a lot of time examining every edit to this BLP since this incident took place in January, 2016. This has been a three year edit war with IP editors clumsily trying to remove the BLP violations and at least 19 editors with accounts battling to keep the garbage in. Pretty shocking and depressing. The original BLP violations were introduced by an SPA, Don Quabauos who made at least 12 edits over several months to keep the crap in. It came back in various forms and was then out of the article for several months in late 2017. It was you, Rms125a@hotmail.com, who rewrote and expanded the BLP violations starting at 20:41 January 19, 2018, and you made at least 14 edits to solidify, expand and keep the BLP violations in the article. You added many references that did not mention this person at all. You called one attempt to remove the BLP violations "gangsta vandalism". You were not alone because several other highly experienced editors just immediately restored these "well referenced" BLP violations when they saw IP editors removing them, but at least those did not write the offending content. You did. Whether news sources have been threatened with legal action is irrelevant here. We have a stringent BLP policy and they don't. To say that I am both angry and disappointed about this situation is an understatement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Rms125a@hotmail.com, since I screwed up the first ping. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Cullen on "angry and disappointed". Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not looking for anyone to be censured here but I would like to ping a few experienced editors as I'm curious as to why they thought it was a good idea to restore this material. @Oshwah: ([37]), @IronGargoyle: twice ([38] and [39]), @Ifnord: ([40]), @SemiHypercube: ([41]) If nothing else, as a lesson in a) just because something is sourced doesn't mean it's necessarily appropriate, and b) read before reverting; don't blindly assume that the IP editor is always wrong and the logged-in editor is always right, or that because the IP has made a legal threat you *must* undo their edit. Fish+Karate 15:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328 -- my last edit was on 24 November 2018‎ when I restored text I believed to be accurate based on such sources as [42], [43], and [44], all of which reference Burwell. My last edits before that were on July 30, and I heard nothing from anyone about that or since then until now. There are a lot of attempts to whitewash bios (such as Donna Hylton) on Wikipedia and I was simply trying to keep that from recurring. If this is not the same Tyreek Burwell whose public threats towards several university students -- who were forced to drop out of college due to these threats -- based on the lies of his sister, Asha Burwell, who was later expelled herself from SUNY Albany, along with another student (a third was suspended), then I understand the outrage. Otherwise, I don't. See the following quotes, despite @Curdle's assertions:

At 3:13 that same morning, Tyreek Burwell, the brother of the most outspoken accuser, Asha Burwell, sent the man this public message on Twitter: "just found out that you were one of the dudes that put your hands on my little sister. Hope the police get to you before I do." Burwell, an offensive tackle for the San Diego Chargers, later deleted that tweet.

and

Last month, three University of Albany students claimed to have been targeted and beaten on a public bus “for being black.” The attack drew rallies in support of the students, a Twitter threat from an alleged victim’s NFL linebacker brother, and even outrage from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, signed in her name on Twitter. But video of the ‘attack’ from the bus security cameras shows a different story: One of the students who alleged she was beaten is seen striking a man, who doesn’t retaliate.

References

As far as Fish and karate, I do understand the point he/she is making, vis a vis, "If nothing else, as a lesson in a) just because something is sourced doesn't mean it's necessarily appropriate, and b) read before reverting; don't blindly assume that the IP editor is always wrong and the logged-in editor is always right, or that because the IP has made a legal threat you *must* undo their edit." That is behavior I have certainly been guilty of on occasion in the past, but I guess I just have a permanently flawed sensibility about what and what doesn't constitute BLP COATRACKING no matter how much I study the section and try to understand it. Quis separabit? 22:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Those look like tabloidsm, and the Daily Beast is certainly not reliable for anything with a political angle. Why not just bring better sources? Guy (Help!) 23:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com, this man's sister (not him) got into a fight on a bus and lied about it. He tweeted once (you used the plural "threats") in defense of his sister and then withdrew the tweet. His sister (not him) got expelled from school and is on probation. You cannot possibly think that this trivial incident deserves to dominate this man's biography, can you? As for Curdle's assertions, at the time they checked the article, which had undergone almost three years of edit warring, none of the references mentioned the football player. I have no idea why you are making a comparison to Donna Hylton who is a convicted felon. Tyreek Burwell has not been accused, arrested or convicted of any crime. Please explain your "gangsta vandalism" edit summary and why you chose that particular misspelling. Do you think you need a topic ban on editing biographies of African-Americans? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com, you just wrote "whose public threats towards several university students -- who were forced to drop out of college due to these threats". Did you actually read the Times-Union source you provided above? That source makes it crystal clear that what you wrote is false. Why are you continuing with BLP violations right here at ANI? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Guy -- The Albany Times-Union website and News10.com are most certainly not tabloids. Quis separabit? 00:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328 -- " this man's sister (not him) got into a fight on a bus and lied about it. He tweeted once (you used the plural "threats") in defense of his sister and then withdrew the tweet. His sister (not him) got expelled from school and is on probation. You cannot possibly think that this trivial incident deserves to dominate this man's biography, can you?" -- NO, of course not. But it was originally claimed by @Curdle that there was "not a single ref refers to Tyreek, muh less states he was involved; none of them state the person was even his sister!!", to which you claim "at the time they checked the article, which had undergone almost three years of edit warring, none of the references mentioned the football player", which makes no sense as the links I cited have been there since the incident took place.

As far as your comment that "You cannot possibly think that this trivial incident deserves to dominate this man's biography, can you?", I agree. I did not realize that my edits had made it appear to dominate his entire biography. We don't always view our own edits the way others do. Perhaps, subjectively, because of my own thought process, I attributed greater importance to the incident than I should have, which is the result of my experiences, my codes, my age, my background, etc. I don't know if I should have to apologize for that. I never falsified anything, never used unreliable sources (except The Daily Beast, but that was in addition to the reliable url links I provided).

As far as Donna Hylton, I bring it up, because, and I do not know if anyone is going to see any comparisons given Hylton's far more serious and criminal offenses but I connected her because there were several blatant attempts to whitewash her article, by Users Latoya Merkel and Tchampagne. The latter's edit summary reads "Made it reflect how the person wants it reflected. She wrote a book and is changing lives and doesn’t need her mistake To be the first thing seen." I tend to regard all attempts at whitewashing as morally equivalent. As for my wrongheaded edit summary "rv gangsta vandalism", I really do not remember why I used it. A third editor of the Hylton page, Jturtleneck, added the term "Jamacon” to Hylton's infobox (which was of course reverted) and that term is rap for criminal from Jamaica, so perhaps it all got conflated in my head. I admit the edit summary was wrong and unprofessional on my part. That's all I can say about that. I believe I have explained everything else, albeit whether to your satisfaction or not is another matter. [[User:|Quis separabit?]] 00:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com, why the heck are you going on and on about Donna Hylton, when this discussion is about another article? Don't you realize how bad that makes you look in this context? No, you have not explained things to my satisfaction, which is probably impossible under the circumstances. I think that I have said enough on this matter, so all I can hope for is that you have learned something from the conversation. Time will tell. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The article never seems to have contained any of the sources you have quoted from or mention here as naming Tyreek, Rms125a@hotmail.com; it makes little sense to me either; thats why it was so perplexing, and slightly horrifying that stuff that could do so much damage to a career could be put into an article with so little care. I hoped that drawing attention to the edit warring might remind all of us to pause to check things before reverting on BLPs, which is why I didnt single out any particular editor. After looking at the history, it is clear neither the text, or sources that were added by you, on 19th January 2018 Diff mention Tyreek Burwell at all, not even the two refs that supposedly support the statement that the lady involved is his sister. The sources used included both the Daily Mail, and the Washington Times, neither of which are RS, and certainly should never appear in a BLP. It is also a textbook example of a coatrack- controversial material that has no direct relevance to the subject, and so shouldnt ever have been there, (even if it did have better refs). "look this guy's sister did something really awful"= coatrack.

It wasnt until the 30th July diff when you expanded it, that mention of the tweet was introduced, and so some actual involvement by the subject in the incident. Still no mention of Tyreek by name in any of the refs, not even the one used to directly support the statement that students have withdrawn because of said tweet.[45].

By this time, despite taking up almost half the articles text, the incident only peripherally involves the subject, and is still not even fully supported. The two links you quoted from (Daily beast, or that particular Times Union article) were not in the text at this stage. They were not when I commented either. Curdle (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The "gangsta vandalism" comment by RMS is very troubling. I think it's worthwhile to examine whether this editor has problems when it comes to issues of race. I briefly checked the 'editor interaction analyzer' to see RMS's edits on pages that I've edited that relate to race. There were not a lot of pages related to race that we had in common, but I noticed that he wrote "Holder gone (thank god)"[46] in the edit summary on the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case (a minor controversy blown out of proportion by rightwing media). This refers to the black Attorney-General Eric Holder. I also saw that he smeared an African-American activist Symone Sanders as a racist on the Unite the Right rally article[47]. RMS was extremely agitated both on the talk page and in edit summaries, and edit-warred considerably to cast the rally in a more favorable light. He, for example, mass-removed this fantastically sourced content with a deceptive edit summary.[48] On Symone Sanders, RMS added text claiming that comments by Sanders "resulted in Sanders' being referred to as a "racist" by many who were offended by the comments."[49] However, the cited sources do not at all support the text's claim that Sanders was being described as a racist. My Wikipedia powers are not strong, so I can't do a proper search and analysis, but I strongly suggest that admins and editors who are capable of looking into this editor's history on race-related (or where the subject is an African-American) articles do so. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I have given a very firm and clear warning to {{U|Rms125a@hotmail.com)), who uses the signature "Quis separabit?". Their next BLP violation will lead to a lengthy block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

{{U|Rms125a@hotmail.com)), I have a feeling that you are not unaware of what is problematic here. Please be more careful--I like to think that I have collaborated with you in many places for many years, but I agree with Cullen328. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Correcting my botched ping to Rms125a@hotmail.com. Thank you, Drmies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Long-term abuse and reversions without cause by User:Nightscream

• Unfulfilled (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nightscream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SanAnMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Nightscream continues as he has demonstrated in the past to abuse me in comments and treat me like my edits are worthless. He has blindly reverted constant revisions which I have made in good faith in an effort to remove repeated wikilinks as per WP:DUPLINK as well as remove identical verbatim language in the top and body of the article Unfulfilled. He has clearly stated on his talk page that he believes any edit I perform is "writing grammatically incoherent sentences or employing redundant wording as you seem to be doing" and "All you're doing by fighting me ensuring the same illiterate, incoherently written gibberish of hit-or-miss clarity that tends to pass for content". His reverts on this article in question are definitely a violation of WP:3RR at the least and even borderline on ownership, but the warnings I left him on his talk page were dismissed with the rude comment: "You have jack shit in the way of authority to give "sole warnings" for anything.". This is just the tip of the iceberg. As a matter of full disclosure, these abuse comments were to the ANI board but with no actions taken. Nightscream is an editor that is, quite frankly, a cancer on this site. Nightscream has incident after incident after incident after incident (and there are more) of personal attacks, ownership of pages, and that most recent incident was even noted that Nightscream was on "final warning basis". I honestly believe that the fact that this user was at one time an administrator has given him a very long leash, but there has to be a line finally drawn here. Nightscream has shown over a long period of time that he continues to attack people who he feels cannot stand up to him, and the fact that he continues to repeat time and time again the same habit patterns proves he is no longer an asset to the community. - SanAnMan (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Because there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Unfulfilled, which involved a number of false claims and questionable behavior by SanAnMan, and since I hadn't responded to the last message that I wanted to, I will compose my response there, hopefully on Dec 10 (daytime), and then see if I can post a note here after I've done so. Nightscream (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

SanAndMan has continued to revert unsourced and poorly sourced material back into the article. To be fair, it'as not all his fault: the MoS for plot items encourages original research, which is a bit of an issue. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Talk:Unfulfilled

I have moved the entirety of an inappropriate discussion from Talk:Unfulfilled, below. The discussion is about editor behavior, not really about improving the article. Softlavender (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi.

Yesterday, Dec 5, about five and a half hours before the premiere of this episode, I began the preliminary article for that episode, which I've observed for some time is standard practice among those editors here who edit the South Park episode articles. The basic plot was supported by a press release, and more citations always follow after an episode airs.

Four hours later (just an hour and a half before the episode aired), User:SanAnMan, reverted it back to the redirect to the Season article that it was before I did this, using the rationale that that the episode "has not aired."

This would mean that User:SanAnMan is not only unfamiliar with standard episode article practices among the editing community here, as with WP:CRYSTAL, which states that articles on future events can be created if the event "is notable and almost certain to take place." It also would mean that User:SanAnMan has never come across an article for a future film, novel, album, television episode, etc. If he were a newbie, this would not have caught much of my attention, but User:SanAnMan has been editing here since 2011. Have you never come across articles on future subjects, SanAnMan?

This may suggest that he simply wanted to blank what I wrote out of spite, which is merely tendentious editing. The evidence for this lies in the fact that himself has in the past changed redirects into preliminary episode articles. In this edit, for example, he did this with the article for the episode "White People Renovating Houses", with the edit summary "add preliminary details for the episode based on press release", which is the exact same thing I did. Ditto for the prelim article for "Hummels & Heroin", which he created on the basis of the press release.

For other articles, like the one for "Franchise Prequel", he made edits to the prelim article, a consistent indication that he had no problem with them.

I would like to address SanAnMan directly by asking him why he did this. RationalAndLiterate (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@RationalAndLiterate: Simple. I, and other editors on this project, have agreed that one press release is no longer sufficient information for the basis of a full article creation. It's just not enough details. This has been our process now since this season began, so yes, it may have been done differently in the past, but just because that's the way it always was doesn't mean that's the way it always should be. There was no spite in the reversion, just an agreement between myself and the other editors who regularly create/edit these episode articles to not actually create the article itself until it actually airs. I would appreciate it if you assume good faith rather than claiming that I was editing out of spite. Thank you. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Please show me the talk page where this discussion took place, and/ which other editors agreed to this. RationalAndLiterate (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's in the edit summaries of previous articles done this season. In addition, WP:CRYSTAL which you referenced states "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." One press release does not meet that requirement. Also, MOS:TV states "Articles should be verifiable and establish notability", and one press release does not meet notability requirements as it fails WP:DEPTH. See also WP:DELAY also for further discussion on this. I appreciate your view on this matter, but this is how myself, User:Nightscream, User:SNUGGUMS, and the other regular editors of these articles have been doing the process. Don't be so offended that your edit was reverted. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I looked through the edit histories of the early season episodes, and in addition to not seeing any talk page discussions on the topic you mention, I see no edit summaries pertaining to this either. Can you please point them out to me? Thanks. RationalAndLiterate (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A press release indeed isn't enough on its own for a page. WP:GNG states that subjects need to be covered by multiple independent sources (not closely affiliated with it) to warrant one. This means nothing from Matt Stone, Trey Parker, Comedy Central, or anyone/anything else with known connections to the show. I'm not saying you can't use their comments within the article at all, only that you need more than them for an article to be worth keeping around. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Presentation of evidence by Nightscream

Wow, SanAnMan. I mean really…WOW.

Lot to unpack here. But man, I can’t believe you just fabricated a discussion that never took place, and even falsely claimed that I was somehow in agreement with you on this imaginary discussion of yours. I’ll give you this: You have gall. Let me see if I can address the simplest points, and then move onto the more nuanced ones that require more depth.

• No, there was no "process" that I was party to regarding your senseless revert, so your attempt to name me when citing this “process” is simply a lie on your part.
• No, discussions do not take place in edit summaries. They take place on talk pages, and as was mentioned above, there was no discussion on the talk pages of any early season episode, nor on the season talk page, nor on the series talk page. Indeed, how would such a discussion occur in edit summaries? This claim by you is patently absurd, and you know it. Even if we were to be generous and grant for this possibility, there are no edit summaries in any of the early season episode articles that indicate that any consensus was reached not to begin preliminary articles a day before an episode airs, much less an hour two, with a press release, or even with no citations at all. How do you explain this? You were asked above about this, and you went silent. Why is that? Please, by all means, tell me.
• No, you did not revert the article because of the reliability of press releases, or any "process" to that effect. You reverted it, according to your edit summary, because the episode hadn't aired yet. When you consider:

-that you did this about an hour an half before the episode before the episode premiered

-the fact that others like myself have begun preliminary episode articles shortly before airtime before, all without a peep from you

-and the fact that Wikipedia is filled with articles on future, films, novels, television shows, Olympics, etc.,

...this makes the mendacious nature of this rationale of yours all the more transparent.

Even if you suddenly believed that articles on not-yet-premiered episodes could not be created on the basis of press releases, this ignores the fact that you yourself created the first redirect of the page by citing in your edit summary---You guessed it---the press release. Granted, this was a redirect, not the article proper. But why would you even bother citing the press release, when redirects generally do not require citations at all? The fact that you decided that it did need a citation, and that you cited the press release, is yet another nail in the coffin of your excuse-making.

Press releases, and deletion/blanking

Since we're on the subject, let's address the claim by you and SNUGGUMS "A press release indeed isn't enough on its own for a page." All things being equal, I agree. But here is where the nuance of the general practices of the editing community, including those of the editors of the South Park articles, and Wikipedia's leanings come in:

Wikipedia leans toward inclusion. Outside of obvious vandalism or defamation, it tends to dislike blanking substantial content, even uncited content (and that includes entire articles that are uncited), without giving some opportunity for sources to be found for material. This is why some prescribe the use of fact tags, or citation tags, to be placed at the end of uncited material, especially if it appears that the material may be of value, in order to give the editing community time to find sources, and/or the move of that material to article's talk page. I just recently did this with large swaths of material in the Bill Gaines talk page.

With respect to article that lack citations entirely, a good clue for Wikipedia's attitudes is its deletion policy. Aside from those articles that are speedily deleted (again, for a narrow range of rationales like obvious nonsense, vandalism, defamation), Wikipedia prescribes that when all other alternatives are not viable, that the following tag {{subst:proposed deletion|REASON}} be used to propose deletion, and that if no one opposes it, the article is deleted after a week. If someone does oppose deletion and removes the tag, then the article can be nominated for deletion. All of this indicates that articles with content in them are generally not deleted/removed even if they lack sources entirely.

Moreover, WP:PSTS and WP:SELFPUB, which are the relevant policies/guidelines that make a press release less desired than a secondary source, do not say that primary sources or self-published sources cannot be used. They merely say that in those instances in which they are used, they must be used with care, and that articles should not be supported primarily by them. Indeed, the most recent time I myself created the preliminary article (albeit post-airing) was for the article on "Buddha Box", the episode just prior to this, which also was initially supported solely by the press release.

We know that reviews for episodes begin appearing on the Web within a day or two of an episode's airing, and I was one of the editors who in 2011 and 2012, began adding multiple reviews to articles right after they were published, beginning with episodes like "Teh Poor Kid" ([50],[51]) and "Reverse Cowgirl" ([52]), an initiative we began after some in the editing community had begun expressing (including Jimmy Wales himself) that episodes did not have automatic notability without secondary sources.

Thus, for an article on an episode of South Park, supported by the press release for that episode, to be reverted back to a redirect an hour and a half before it premieres, using the rationale that "Oh, it hasn't aired yet", by someone who not only knows that secondary sources tend to be added to the article a day or two after it premieres, but who has himself added those very sources is, to put it mildly, wildly absurd.

And no, WP:DELAY offers nothing to bolster your rationale. The language of that guideline clearly indicates that it pertains solely to subjects whose future notability is unclear. Again, this obviously does not apply to these episode articles, which always generate secondary sources in the form of reviews and other production info, which are always added to the articles as part of standard practice. Do you deny this?

Thus, it is reasonable to conclude form this evidence/reasoning that your revert was exactly what it appeared to be: An completely arbitrary act on your part more likely to have been motivated by WP:OWN-type tendencies, rather than careful adherence to policy, or general practices among the editing community. How do we know this? Because you do it all the time.

SanAnMan's history of problematic edits

For example, you removed an Oxford comma from the "Buddha Box", claiming MOS:COMMA as your rationale. But as it was pointed out to you when it was restored, MOS:COMMA says nothing about removing Oxford commas. In fact, it says the exact opposite: That they may indeed be used, as long as they are used consistently. Since I wrote that synopsis, and since I do indeed use them consistently, in what way does MOS:COMMA justify you’re removing it? You then removed it again, and in your edit summary, rather than explaining how MOS:COMMA actually supported your position, you abandoned that rationale, and leap-frogged onto a new one, explaining "But we are not using oxford commas in these or any other South Park article."

Oh really?

Excuse me, SanAnMan, but who are exactly are you to decide whether the entire editing community uses Oxford commas in that article or any other one, especially given the fact that you’re not the one who typically writes the episode synopses? I've been editing the South Park articles for several years, and neither I nor any other of the editors I've collaborated with here have ever formed any resolution about Oxford commas and keep in mind that I'm largely responsible for much of the standard format exhibit of these articles, from the regular creation of the Critical reception that was crucial to establishing notability for the episode articles, ([53],[54],[55]) to the banner at the top of the talk pages that I wrote. Despite this, you claim unilateral authority to tell others which types of commas we use, even on synopses that you did not write yourself?

This is textbook WP:OWN-type behavior.

This was not the first example of this behavior, or the last. I’ve been reverting arbitrary edits by you ever since you started regularly editing South Park articles. The most recent edits of this nature have been to this article. The utter inanity of the reasoning you employ to justify these edits is astounding, as it the sheer frequency with which you employ it. Here are some samples:

1. You removed the South Park Studios press release that establishes the basic plot of the episode from the Lead to the External links section. By itself, this is not a huge problem, but you explain this edit by saying, "Per WP:EL biased sites with conflicts of interest should not be used as cites". But WP:EL doesn’t say anything about conflicts of interest, or biases, or for that matter, which sources should be used as citations! That's because WP:EL doesn't deal with citations. It deals with links in the External links section. Moreover, there is no "conflict of interest". A conflict of interest is one in which the aims or interests of the source threaten the objectivity or accuracy of the information in question. The idea that South Park Studios cannot provide accurate info about one of their own episodes is ridiculous. While the eventual move of the press release from the Lead to EL is not a problem, the fact you provide these rationales for it shows that you lack ability to form coherent reasoning, or sound judgment.

1. In the next edit, you changed the location of the word “however” in a sentence. You offered no explanation for why this was necessary. It was simply arbitrary. And in the same edit, you also removed expositional material from an article explaining that a character is a child. Wikipedia is not a fan site. It is written for the general reader, which means it must be written with the assumption that a reader is among the uninitiated, and may not be familiar with these characters. This why we have something called exposition. Do you understand what that is?
2. You then removed material on one of the major points of parody in the episode from the Lead, saying in your summary, "fine, if you want it listed in the top, then it doesn't need to be repeated, word-for-word, with identical wikilinks (not needed per WP:OVERLINK), in the bod". But WP:OVERLINK only pertains to repeated wikilinks. Not to the wording of the Lead summary. I explained to you in my revert "Yes, the Lead DOES repeat some material from the article body. This because the purpose of the Lead is to summarize the salient points of the article, which by necessity, involves repetition, and which makes obscuring the point of parody in the body inane." I did not revert the wikilink, since I didn't disagree with your citation of OVERLINK for that, but you then you reverted it yet again, now stating "WP:OVERLINK and MOS guides clearly state to avoid repeating details." This is false. Both the Lead and the Infobox necessarily repeat information in the article body by definition. There is no MOS guideline that says otherwise. If there had been, you would've cited it explicitly in the edit summary, but you didn't.
3. You then began split hairs over the fact that Jeff Bezos is depicted in the episode as one of the alien Talosians from the Star Trek pilot "The Cage," by arguing that he has a cleft in the back of his head that even reviews mention. So what? This is trivia. It does not have to be included in order for the description to be generally true, which it is. Articles do not have to mention every trivial detail. They only have summarize the salient information on the subject. The fact that the show depicted him as a Talosian is salient, because it's one of the major pop culture references in the story. His occipital cleft is not. If there were a naturalistic part of the article where it bore mentioning, that would be fine. But nothing about these passages requires it, and shoe-horning it in there is just officious, tendentious hair-splitting that results in bad writing. And yet, you continue to engage in arbitrary edits and without any consistency: with your next revert, you removed the point of parody from the Synopsis entirely. Why ON EARTH would you do that? You removed a point of parody from the synopsis of a parody TV episode? Even though you previously said that were you okay with it being in both the Lead and the Synopsis? This is not different "wording". This is you harming a Wikipedia article by removing content without a valid rationale, and pretending in your edit summary that somehow it's the other guy who's displaying WP:OWN-type behavior. After you changed the article to state that Bezos' depiction was merely "similar" to the Talosians, another editor, JzG, reverted that, saying he viewed your insistence on mere "similarity" as OR on your part. So now two editors disagreed with your edits, yet you continued to revert, again emphasizing whether the two passages repeated "word-for-word", when nothing in Wikipedia policy, guidelines or MOS precludes this. So you are now reverting two other editors who disagree with you, which is clearly grounds for blocking, yet you're accusing others of WP:OWN behavior?
4. You then claimed in your next revert that "WP:3RR and ownership clearly demonstrated" on my part. And yet somehow, you exempt yourself from that charge, even though you were reverting yourself. Why is this?

I have no problem with edits made to my work, or even reverts, when they are done competently, by people who understand not only Wikipedia policy, but the essentials of good writing. Your own writing, from your vocabulary to your overall skills at composition, SanAnMan, ranges from subpar to awful. When an robot accidentally injures an employee in a warehouse you express by saying that the worker got "caught up in the automated mechanics of the plant." Caught up in the automated mechanics? This makes it sound as if he was engrossed in a technical manual. When describing how the establishment of a fulfillment center destroys local jobs or leads to business closures, you describe this by saying, "The new center is quickly taking over the jobs of many people in town". When one business displaces others, it does not "take over" jobs. There are lots of ways to express this, from "destroying jobs" or "leads to businesses closing", etc. When you added critical reception info to the article, half of what you wrote about John Hugar of The A.V. Club's reaction was simply a restatement of the plot. You're not the first person with a lower level of literacy than I to make edits to Wikipedia. But you take the prize for being the first one who insists upon his edits as if they are equal to or somehow superior to those of people who write well.

Despite all this, you reported me to ANI. Not surprisingly, your complaint consisted almost entirely of complaining about past incidents. I find it particularly amusing that you were so indiscriminate with the links you provided to these flaps, even going so far as to include my conflict with serial policy violator Alan Sohn, whose rap sheet at ANI is longer than the Great Wall of China. You also lied when you made the false claim, "He has clearly stated on his talk page that he believes any edit I perform is 'writing grammatically incoherent sentences or employing redundant wording." In fact, not only have I never said that "any" of your edits amounted to this, not only have I gone on record as saying that many editors, including yourself, make many positive edits to articles, but I did this in the very comment you linked to, when I said, "Why don't you try letting someone who knows how to write a sentence, and for that matter, a decent story synopsis, just do his thing, and make those little tweaks that you do pretty well?"

You are not admin, yet you presume to tells others that this is their "only" warning for this or that. Newsflash: You're not an admin, and have zero authority to tell anyone that you're giving them "only" one waring for anything.

Please falsify this

If you can falsify any of what I've presented here, then please answer the following:

1. What is your basis for the claim that editor consensus can occur in edit summaries, as opposed to talk pages?
2. Where are the edit summaries that you claimed resolved to exclude press releases for even preliminary articles in the beginning of the season?
3. Why did you not provide these edit summaries when you asked for them earlier?
4. Why did you claim that I was part of the "process" that arrived at this resolution?
5. Why did you cite the press release when you created the redirect for this episode, which was not an episode from early in the season?
6. Why did you offer no objection when JE98 created the preliminary article for "Time to Get Cereal", PRIOR to that episode’s airing, also supported solely by the press release?
7. Are you aware that articles lacking sources for notability can stay up for a week after a nomination being nominated, and if so, why would you think it so imperative to blank/revert a preliminary article for a South Park episode just hours before it airs, when you know that secondary sources will be added within a day or two?
8. Given that you’ve been editing South Park articles for less time than I have, and that I’m responsible for much of the standard formatting and practices governing their editing, what is your basis for your claim "But we are not using oxford commas in these or any other South Park article."
9. Please tell me why your preferred placement of the word “however” in this edit is superior to the way I wrote it. What policy, guideline or principle of good writing do you cite for this?
10. Why did you claim that 3RR and WP:OWN behavior were established on my part, but not your own, given that you performed the same reverts?
11. Do you really believe non-admins have the authority to issue “sole” warnings for anything?

Summary

So what do we have here?

• You don't write well, and you constantly make arbitrary changes that are not supported by policy or by basics of good writing, and reject correction by others.
• You often don't cite any rationale for these edits, and when you do, you frequently misrepresent the various policies and guidelines that you cite. You even fabricate "agreements" with other editors that never took place. When called on this lie, you double down on that lie with another lie, claiming that it took place in edit summaries (which you are unable to provide), and even cite as one of the other editors who "agrees" with you someone who has never discussed the matter with you, and most certainly does not agree with you.
• When told the policies or MOS guidelines you cite do not support your claims, you revert anyway, fabricating more false rationales.
• You revert even after multiple editors revert your edits, which is not permitted by Wikipedia policy, and is a blockable offense.
• You display clear WP:OWN-type behavior, by claiming unilateral authority "we" are not doing this or "we" are not doing that, but you instead accuse your opponent of this.
• You accuse your opponent of 3RR violation, but exempt yourself, despite revering yourself.
• You are not admin, yet you presume to portray yourself as having the powers of one.

Going forward

Prior to your complaint and ANI, your "only warning" nonsense and the reverts you made to the article around the same time, I was hoping I could reach you. Contrary to what you may think, I really have nothing against you, and I dislike this sort of conflict. A couple of years ago I made a point of trying to reduce my interaction with others here because of such conflict, but when someone who routinely violates policy, who shows lack of basic writing skills, and seems to exhibit a malignant narcissism by rejecting the judgement of others out of hand starts insisting on editing the same articles as me this is no longer possible. A few years ago, an editor named Asgardian terrorized the editors on comics-related articles for about two and a half years. Since no one else would draw a line in the sand with him, it fell to me to spearhead the initiative to get him banned from Wikipedia. It didn't end well for him. I'll be alerting others to the evidence I've laid out on this page, and request their comment.

In the meantime, I implore you to consider what I've said here, and take a good look at the behavior you've exhibited in the edits and diffs shown here. If you really want to collaborate with me and others here, I urge you to reconsider the course that you're on. Doing so will go a long way to impress those who may come here to evaluate this matter. I want to believe that it's possible for anyone who really wants to be a good editor to learn to adhere to the policies and guidelines the community on this site has prescribed for improving it, but you've been here for seven years, and given your conduct, I don't know if I'm being naive. Nightscream (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I’m going out of town for a few days. I’ll address this steaming pile when I return. - SanAnMan (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Holy wall of text, Batman! Way to guarantee nothing happens with this complaint. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, especially if you're too lazy to read all the relevant evidence. I know sometimes these evidence presentations and discussions can be a slog, but honestly, I will never understand why those who aren't willing to roll up their sleeves and do the work set themselves up here as the arbiters of such problems. If you're not willing to look at the evidence, then why come here to ANI??

If it helps, the behavior is summarized at the bottom of my evidence. Look for the text that reads "So what do we have here?" You can then read the explanations and diffs in the upper sections if you like. Nightscream (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) We may be willing to "roll up our sleeves", but you sure could make it easier by trimming it down. We're all volunteers here, none of us particularly desire to read 10 pages of text. WP:WALLOFTEXT might be a worthy read. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

There certainly is a lot going on here. I would want to see a response from SanAnMan before commenting. BOZ (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Date changer

• Template:Mike Newell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 152.0.11.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 148.0.5.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

There's an IP editor in the Dominican Republic who's going around changing dates on a large scale. This is most apparent on {{Mike Newell}}, where you can see the IP edit warring to change a date: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]. Other articles where this is happening include (but are not limited to!) Don Juan DeMarco ([62], [63]), Sugar Hill (1994 film) ([64], [65]), {{Leon Ichaso}} ([66], [67]), Terence Blanchard ([68], [69]), etc. Can someone please block 148.0.5.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• NinjaRobotPirate, is this solved now, or do you think the other IP should be blocked as well? Also, in terms of {{Mike Newell}}, wouldn't semi-protection be a good/better idea? IPs don't need to edit templates, so the semi-protection can be longterm. You can even implement that yourself without crossing any lines. I guess what I'm asking is, can this thread be closed? I'm not sure. Softlavender (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest leaving it open. Then nobody has to start a new thread in 12 hours when this starts up again. The other IP seems to be stale and unused now, so semi-protection is probably overkill when we could just block the current IP address being used. But if people think I'm being too cautious by bringing this here, I can deal with it myself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • If you have the tools, then use them, by god!!!! No seriously, repeated obvious vandalism doesn't need a check-in before blocking. Just ask all those admins that get constant nasty notes on their talkpages. Like our friend Oshwah. Softlavender (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I think this is more likely to be a case of disruptive editing than vandalism. The date changes are plausible but unsourced. The IP editor could be making it up or could be working from a comprehensive encylopedia of film releases. Hopefully, the IP editor will start citing sources now, but, in my experience, this is usually not how it ends. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• @Galobtter: the IP is changing dates again: [70], [71], [72]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

  Blocked for a week.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Possible IP abuser - DPPTPP

I think DPPTPP used 107.64.X.X (/ 20) IP address range.First, I noticed the recent edits of 107.77.211.48, 107.77.211.127 and 107.77.212.195. Their editing and the DPPTPP editing I canceled were the same model. Second, DPPTPP used to react quickly the editing of 107.64.X.X (/ 20) IP address range was cancelled by me.If he doesn't respond so fast, I think I shouldn't notice that he is having problems.

I'm ‎36.232.87.193 or 36.232.207.225. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.232.207.225 (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? That an editor might be editing without logging in? What is urgent about this? 104.129.198.99 (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Can I imagine you are DPPTPP himself?If so, then the number of IPs you can use makes me surprised.I originally only noticed that 107.64.X.X (/ 20) IP address range was abused.Among the 107.64.X.X (/ 20) IP address range, I found that DPPTPP is also one of the abusers.The reason I noticed him was because he reacted too fast.I need to thank Oshwah for letting me know that DPPTPP is also one of the abusers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.232.207.225 (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oshwah, you were mentioned here. Can you please look into this? It concerns DPPTPP. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

He may have abused other IPs 205.173.47.252 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_nationalism&type=revision&diff=873363773&oldid=868699930 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_scientists&type=revision&diff=873365450&oldid=867908441 , 67.188.179.66 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tashi_Dondrup&type=revision&diff=873359430&oldid=840894866 or 2600:387:6:800::/60 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Chinese_scientists&type=revision&diff=873365450&oldid=815859282.

I found that his anomaly editing also contains swear words or nonsense words in the editorial summary.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sino-Vietnamese_conflicts,_1979%E2%80%931991&diff=prev&oldid=873348089 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CIA_Tibetan_program&type=revision&diff=873361619&oldid=873361517 Deliberately making spelling mistakes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CIA_Tibetan_program&type=revision&diff=873361517&oldid=873359701. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.232.207.225 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I found that he wanted to keep his spelling mistakes through the editorial war. In order to stop him, I reported him at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.232.207.225 (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Mass deletion of blocked sock

Hello, a blocked sock, user:Hayholt, has made several pages that have all been tagged as a G5. Me and a couple other users (@Barkeep49: and @OhKayeSierra:) have tagged most of them although quite a few still remain untagged. Would an admin be willing to special:nuke it or use AWB to delete the pages already tagged as there are quite a bit of them as seen here. Thanks, Kb03 (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted a good chunk of it. GAB^gab 05:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

A little bit late to the party, but I just want to thank User:GeneralizationsAreBad and User:Oshwah for their assistance in clearing the CAT:G5 backlog tonight, which was a sizeable amount of work to be done. I owe both of you drinks. 😁 OhKayeSierra (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• It looks like there are a few pages still not deleted. Pinging @Kb03, GeneralizationsAreBad, OhKayeSierra, Oshwah, and Barkeep49:. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel confident enough about the Files to touch those but given that they're non-free would presume if they're not in use they'll be deleted through normal processes. I think the remaining articles left untagged have significant contributions from people other than Hayholt and thus should not be deleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Dragos Simandan reference spam

Yesterday I noticed this edit (which I reverted) by a single-edit single-purpose account (SPA) that added a marginally relevant in-press journal article by an academic named Dragos Simandan to the lead section of Time geography.

I searched for Dragos Simandan on Wikipedia to find whether similar edits had been made to other articles. I found a pattern of SPAs adding references to Simandan's publications, from May 2017 to yesterday. All or most of the edits incorrectly added ref tags before punctuation, spaces before ref tags, and/or other punctuation-related weirdness. Often the references were added to an article's lead section so that Simandan's publication would appear at or near the top of the reference list, even when such prominent placement would be inappropriate, as in the first edit I noticed. Here is another example that is similar to the first edit I noticed: In Psychological stress, the second sentence "Stress is a type of psychological pain" is referenced to a journal article by Simandan titled "On how much one can take: relocating exploitation and exclusion within the broader framework of allostatic load theory", which does not clearly describe how "stress is a type of psychological pain" (the phrase "psychological pain" does not even appear in it), but rather explains how "allostatic load theory" is relevant to geographers—not a good source to explain how stress is a type of psychological pain.

Here is the list of edits I found that added Simandan references, in random order:

• Special:Diff/872981015 (the first edit I noticed, reverted) by Oxana Ribald (talk · contribs · count)
• Many edits by Angela Gh (talk · contribs · count) — As noted by Jytdog on the talk page of Angela Gh, the same user was also making similar edits from an IP address. After being warned by Jytdog, the user abandoned this account and started creating new accounts.
• Special:Diff/868485727 by Josh Turnbull (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/855024437 by Chan Shi Min (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/824493212, Special:Diff/824493585, Special:Diff/824494594 by 103.203.188.143 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/791023580, Special:Diff/791024361 by 88.87.203.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/824723756, Special:Diff/824724023, Special:Diff/824724559, Special:Diff/824724910 by 203.167.201.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/851976036 by Valentino Primi (talk · contribs · count)
• Many edits by 216.110.240.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/790517165, Special:Diff/790518056, Special:Diff/790518862 by 212.145.222.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/869564647 by Hunor Szabo (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/823195293, Special:Diff/823196056, Special:Diff/823196615, Special:Diff/823197274 by 209.226.201.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/856764180 by Territo Minhao (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/868785374 by Jeanne Coutue (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/860252726 by Sasha Shoren (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/864147583 by Denzel Krinos (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/858148152 by Mo-Chi-Chan Mi (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/862286480 by Elena Bihari (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/825703020, Special:Diff/825703962, Special:Diff/825704461 by 114.23.138.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/850855637 by Arnold Kahn (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/854730171 by Marinella Inglewood (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/860991525 by Mona Rodon (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/870690774 by Ludovic 3Cairn (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/850523262 by Ramon Varga (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/866613575 by Gayatri Pateli (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/863375276 by Pilar Negropontes (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/869953884 by Anette32 Beaujeau (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/867392641 by David3 Yeung (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/856081093 by Lori Watts (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/862058406 by Levy Johen (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/872146587 by Marina Kirilowa (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/788934254 by Ghena Dimitrova (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/861294056 by Pradesh Peri (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/823262273, Special:Diff/823262855, Special:Diff/823263336 by 216.9.110.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/852945577 by Min Chi-San (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/824998438, Special:Diff/824999085, Special:Diff/824999513, Special:Diff/825000471 by 118.92.105.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/857074918 by Malina Olean (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/871024390 by Dimitre Kabaivansk (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/789602935, Special:Diff/789604281 by Arta Gencer (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/847445105 by 2607:FEA8:6E0:94E:14DA:B479:DE2A:3430 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/865199200 by Irina della Carra (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/823999974, Special:Diff/824000731, Special:Diff/824001832, Special:Diff/824002968 by 49.227.229.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/852645772 by Genevieve D'Arnout (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/871788558 by Min Chang Kan (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/867698200 by Kurzban Babaduk (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/848800477 by Pushpa A. Patel (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/791289485, Special:Diff/791290312 by 213.0.118.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Special:Diff/864467691 by Maria della Ronea (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/866277924 by Dan Mallars (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/859979365 by Ronald Godlew (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/847732980 by David Chan Wen (talk · contribs · count)
• Special:Diff/853700060 by Krishna Spivak-Patel (talk · contribs · count)

Effects of economic inequality also includes a Simandan reference because that article was split off from Economic inequality after the person made an edit that inserted a Simandan reference in two places in the latter article.

In at least one instance, the person made an edit that inserted a Simandan reference that was quickly reverted (by Snowded), and then eight months later made an edit that reinserted the same Simandan reference (but without the talk page discussion requested earlier by Snowded). In both edits, the person referenced the same publication, but not in the same place, which (along with the creation of multiple single-edit accounts listed above) suggests that the principal purpose was to promote Simandan's publication, not to support a specific claim with the best source.

The person appears to have discovered that the winning formula to avoid being reverted was to reference both a Simandan publication and a publication by someone else and include the magic words "academic" and/or "peer-reviewed" (or similar authoritative-sounding phrases) in the edit summary.

The only instance I found of an edit that added a publication by Simandan that was likely not the same person as the edits listed above was this edit to Pedagogy, which does not share the characteristics of the other edits above, all of which were likely added for the principal purpose of promoting Simandan's publications.

The fact that Jytdog warned the person about reference spamming on the talk page of one of the accounts, and the person did not respond but instead started creating new accounts, suggests to me that there is a good chance that the person knows that this behavior is spammy and is being deliberately evasive.

I am not sure what action should be taken. The Simandan references do not appear to be essential, and they are often only marginally relevant, so it may be appropriate to remove most of them. I could work on that task if others agree.

I notified the person at the talk page of the most recently active account, User talk:Oxana Ribald. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that pretty clearly qualifies as reference spamming. Relevance of the article to the spammed topics appears to be rarely substantial, generally slight to very slight, and always post-hoc - i.e., the material was not used as a source for the content but the ref was slapped on afterwards. This is misuse of WP for academic promotion; I'd suggest complete removal. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

{{checkuser needed}} MER-C 16:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 In progress and could take a while.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Angela Gh. If you find more accounts/IPs they may be reported there. If those accounts have edited within the last 90 days and are not already blocked by a checkuser then request a checkuser to look at it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Terryfirut (2nd)

Terryfirut (talk · contribs) still made disruptive edits like Special:Diff/872282428, Special:Diff/873157477. I agree that this user is not a sock of other users, but this kinds of acts are considered as WP:GAMING, in order to attain extended confirmed user rights. Since the user has been warned for times, I assumed that he should know about this act is unacceptable. This needs admin attention, apart from Ad Orientem. --219.79.97.247 (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I am new, Second of all, I changed it because the kong Rey page only leads to the dis page, however, it won't load Kong Reys page in 2018 typhoon season, so I undo it, Third of all, I have already learned the things I did and will only change some things, Last, I will be asking b dash if this is disruptive editing or not @B dash:Terryfirut (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Omairosmani

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

User has stated they operate a website; their only purpose here seems to be to introduce that site to medical articles [73][74][75][76][77], in these examples also reverting other editors. Warned about COI, continues. Concern also expressed that they may be operating another account (created the same day) that seems to follow them like this and this. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Since you have explained about the Conflict of interest or COI. I have added the reference from the news article The Indian Express for Vultures are long-lived and slow to breed. It starts breeding only at the age of 6-year and only 50% of them survive. I hope you will not have any problem now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omairosmani (talk • contribs) 16:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Apparent violation of WP:ROLE

The user Glodxin2 has declared on their userpage to be a "role account", in direct violation of WP:ROLE, which says that such accounts are "forbidden and blocked". In addition, they share their password on their user page and on the page Wikipedia:Public user accounts, which they created. This isn't exactly vandalism or sockpuppetry so I couldn't think of a better place to take it than here, but this seems to warrant an indef block. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The account was already indef'd but their edits looks like vandalism to me. (Taylor Swift as a spam attacker?) RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The published password was the correct one. I've scrambled it, so that account is done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to just have it locked? Natureium (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Would that still allow login at Meta? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an expert at anything, but I thought locked accounts couldn't log in at all. Natureium (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, people can't log in to locked accounts (see m:Global locks). Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Good block, and so on. Account was obviously only going to be used for spam. I do think that WP:ROLE would have applied but reporting here was fine. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Long-term disruptive editing from hotel IP

I'm requesting a new longterm block on 175.103.25.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for repeated disruptive editing, ranging from inappropriate use of a fair-use image to inserting their own ideas, false accusations of vandalism, and just general disruptive behavior, too much to list here. A 1-year block just expired on December 1, and they're back at it. Pinging Ad Orientem, the last blocking sysop. Home Lander (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 years. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, appreciated. I ran through the recent edits and reverted the obvious ones; some of the others might be better off reverted as well. Home Lander (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Home Lander I will defer to your judgement as you are more familiar with their editing history. If you think it is seriously disruptive go ahead and revert it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think they are mostly  Done. I don't recall coming across this IP before, but saw the book-long list of warnings on their page and figured they were worth a review. Home Lander (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way to find the top ten unblocked user talk pages by numbers of warnings? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

That might be difficult since pages can be blanked. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

IP-hopping gibberish vandal, also possibly a bot?

• 185.133.225.117 (talk · contribs)
• 89.140.169.24 (talk · contribs)

There's an anon who I'm pretty sure is the same person (bot?) rapidly making nonsense edits to articles. When they're blocked, they rotate IPs with a short break. I swear I've seen this same one while patrolling recent changes a few days ago, but I can't remember the IP and I've kind of been on a recent changes patrolling spree lately. Not too experienced with IP hoppers, but I figured I'd ping here. Also still waiting on the 89 one to be blocked, been sitting at AIV for a bit. Cheers, cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, ping for Materialscientist as blocking admin for 185. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit (A) triggers watchlist item (B), causing undo (C) and revert notification (D), leading admin (E) to fly off the handle, tilting talkpage balance of power (F), causing diffs to be dumped on ANI (H). ANI thread (I) opens Pandora's Box (J), leading to fireworks (K) at Arbcom. Boomerang (L) gives editor WP:ROPE (M), ending in 12-hour block and smack with trout-infused napkin.

-EEng

• It's someone posting gibberished sneers at editors. Kind of sad, really--there spending a lot of time writing up shit, to then have some machine garble and post it. It's kind of like--what do you call those machines that are all over the movie version of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead, the complicated machines that do very little? There's a fancy name for em. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Rube Goldberg machines? I haven't seen that movie, but that's my guess based on your description. Natureium (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Difference is, those are fun. This is just shit garbled as shit, with someone wasting their life on doing it. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• This is our old friend the refdesk vandal. Rollback/revert on sight, block, and ignore, please. Vanamonde (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Vanamonde93: Ooh, did not realize. Wilco! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • You may wish to see WP:LTA/REF for more information. funplussmart (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
    • And yeah I thought he was gone for good for a while but he has come back. I hate to see pages get protected just because it is the only way to stop him. funplussmart (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @Cymru.lass: No worries; everyone can't be expected to know of them, but now you do. It's also worth saying that if you come across older contributions (older than 48 hours) that look like one of theirs, which you can still see, it's worth emailing the oversight team. Best, Vanamonde (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Materialscientist, mind suppressing after blocking? There's a mass revdel-suppression tool available. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Racist IP-hopper leaving vile edits on articles and user-talk pages

• Special:Contributions/117.136.79.51
• Special:Contributions/117.136.79.53
• Special:Contributions/47.185.142.148

See also this edit left on User:Myasuda's talk page.

Multiple warnings were left on two talk pages,[78][79] and possibly others I don't know about. Fortunatestars (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked the range for the first two since that's definitely the same person. 47.185 seems to be someone else, since they just engaged in petty vandalism instead of racist vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. At first glance they looked like the same person. Fortunatestars (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Proving once again you can't really be a racist unless you're dumb. Thank you Ian.thomson. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No, the assumption that racists are automatically dumb can be dangerously complacent - racism is, unfortunately, not the preserve of low intellects, and we should not disregard it that way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

William Shockley. EEng 00:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• It's not racist to hate a people who have committed horrible atrocities against your own people. The Left hurls the "racist" slur against everyone they don't like, and as a result the term has become rather meaningless. For, example the Left would probably accuse me of being racist because I am Jewish and harbor considerable hatred for Germans and Arabs, but don't consider them racially inferior. Therefore, there is no racism involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigmysusie (talk • contribs) 01:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC) — Pigmysusie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Then you don't understand what racism is. Also, your capitalization needs work. EEng 02:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Pigmysusie, you convinced me you are a racist with one post. The awful acts of Germans 80 years ago are not a good reason to hate Germans today. Legacypac (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

So is a collateral boomerang coming for that Pigmysusie if so? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 02:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Whack! ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 12:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing

FallenAngel246 (talk · contribs)

Continued disruptive editing/genre warring across Eagles related articles. Obviously a SPA to change album/song articles to their preferred version, without references and/or consensus. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• They've been ignoring all the warnings on their talk page, so blocked for 31 hours to encourage paying attention. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I've upped the block to indef - it's a sock.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Long-term WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by User:Leo Freeman

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

• Added "Armenian architecture" to the Islamic architecture page without source. No edit summary/explanation.[80]
• Added "Armenian Renaissance" to the Macedonian art (Byzantine) page without source, explanation or edit summary.[81]
• Tried to put WP:UNDUE weight on a possible Armenian origin of a Byzantine ruling dynasty, through sheer edit-warring.[82]-[83]-[84]
• Added "Armenian" to the Philippicus (general) page without edit summary/sources.[85]
• Completely overhauls the stable revision on the Armenia page, changing the "establishment date" of Armenia from the 6th century BC to 2492 BC without edit summary/explanation.[86] When Calthinus restored the original version, "Leo Freeman" restored his version, thus ignoring WP:BRD and WP:WAR. MIND YOU; Calthinus made a talk page section in September 2018 about the very same content, but "Leo Freeman" never bothered to participate.[87]
• Removed the Georgian transliteration on the Mushki page, using an edit summary "Nothing Georgian, they are connected much more with Armenians".[88]
• Replaced the Hebrew transliteration from the lede of a church in Jerusalem with an Armenian transliteration. No edit summary/explanation[89]
• Changed "Persian" to "Armenian", even though the Armenian in question served as a general in the Persian armies.[90]
• Added "Armenians in Bulgaria" to the article of a Bulgarian ruler. No edit summary/explanation.[91]
• Removes the Georgian transliteration of a town related to Georgian history, but keeping the Armenian one. No edit summary/explanation[92]
• Edit warring on Henrikh Mkhitaryan in order to add a link to "Armenians".[93]-[94]
• Changed "seventh century BC" to "2nd millenium BC" without source and edit summary/explanation (i.e. making Armenians "more ancient").[95]
• Added "Armenian" to the Proto-Greek language article without edit summary/explanation.[96]
• Added Armenian Highlands to the Peoples of the Caucasus in Turkey article without edit summary/explanation.[97]
• Edit-warring on the Sabre Dance article in order to remove the Russian transliteration (a ballet composed by a Soviet-Armenian composer and conductor).[98]-[99]
• Added "Armenian satrap" to the lede of a ruler of the Persian Empire. No edit summary/explanation[100]
• Added unsourced content to the Armenian language page. No edit summary/explanation.[101]

I issued him an AA2 warning in the past with clear examples of his disruptive editorial pattern, to which he unfortunately never replied.[102] Looking at the compelling evidence, I don't think this editor is here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware of the depth of how problematic this pattern was before -- I had only interacted with the ultranationalist edits on Armenia, i.e. attempts to date Armenia's history back to a "traditional" date with no sourcing at all before 2400 BC. Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. --Calthinus (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hostility toward other editors from User:Thewolfchild

This user has a very, very long history of making personal attacks and picking fights instead of sticking to the issues. The failure to assume good faith has been a very-long term problem. His hostility to other editors can be seen nearly everywhere he edits, such as in Talk:War with ""Again, the onus is..." blah, blah, blobbity-blah, blah, blaahhh.... Says who? You?" and "Were any of those edit summaries directed at you? No? Then wtf are you babbling about?"...among other numerous recent cases of assuming bad faith, sourness, personal attacks, etc. He has been repeatedly encouraged to strike out some of his ruder comments, such as on Talk:Natalya Meklin he was told "balance of your response is largely unhelpful and personalises the dispute". I am fully aware that I am not the only user who would support such preventative actions - I am sure that users such as @Bones Jones:, @Kges1901:, and many others would support it. A sockpuppet investigation would be a good idea too.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of your claims above, I've deleted your redirect from Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/thewolfchild to this AN/I report.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of sockpuppeting? Unsubstantiated allegations are not helpful (and could be considered a personal attack).Nigel Ish (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet check request - I just wanted to make sure that there were no sock puppets participating in this discussion. I thought there was a small change Cinderella157 might be a sockpuppet, but that was based purely on the lack of hostility and obstructionism directed towards Cinderella157 compared to the extreme hostility towards 99.9% of other users. The sockpuppet investigation is not a main priority here, though.

Perhaps the blatant canvassing in the OP can be addressed as well? - wolf 18:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and just noticed... there isn't a single mention of the Talk:Natalya Meklin page, which is where all these complaints stem from (it's the only article that PsA320 and I have interacted on). The page speaks for itself, and if indeed we're allowed to ping other editors to this report, then I'd suggest notifying all the editors that participated on that page. That page is also where, on October 30, I both posted my last reply to PsA320 and indicated that I would no longer be replying to them, as it is pointless to do so. I still haven't posted any comments to them (with the single exception of addressing their harrassment on my talk page). - wolf 19:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

How about this from about 24 hours ago, thewolfchild? Do you think maybe you should apologize to Eli355? Or would an apology be uncalled-for? Bus stop (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Not all complaints about you stem from Natalya Meklin - in fact, most do not. A look at your block log and recent contributions is rather telling. It is clear from some of your edit summaries that you are VERY hostile to most Wikipedia users. I only regret that I did not investigate your contributions earlier. Comments from you like some of the ones linked seem to be very common across various articles. And I have to say that the fact that you constantly want to restart the drama at Natalya Meklin (which does not put you in a very positive light) and use it as an opportunity to sling mud is quite unproductive, not to mention shameful. I am not asking for an apology, but I do think you should apologize to many other users.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Wolf also claims that ever October he has stopped posting comments to me, but that he a little misleading. He still does not hesitate to ramble on bashing me in comments directed towards other editors on the talkpage of Natalya Meklin, and has done so quite recently. Such comments, in addition to various other comments from wolf, along with the lack of productive content-producing work (like the lack of articles written) certainly don't help his case - every day he seems more and more like a comments section troll than a Wikipedian. Such behaviors have been very detrimental to the project as a whole. And the hostility in this discussion here certainly isn't helping his case.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• The suggestion wrt my being a sock by PlanespotterA320 is absurd, made on the flimsiest of grounds and per Nigel Ish, totally inappropriate. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• I would strongly encourage PlanespotterA320 to strike her comments about Cinderella157 being a sock, as the accusation merely damages her case. Kges1901 (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Kges1901: If you don't think it's a sock, I don't think it's a sock. (I trust you) I was admittedly a little overly suspicious about the unusual lack of hostility towards Cinderella from wolf, relative to everyone else. @Cinderella157: I am sorry for offending you. I should have had more to go on before bringing it up.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I have not looked into it, but I doubt TWC would sock.

About the manner of TWC, PlanespotterA320 is not imagining this. Snarky, hostile, and aggressive posts by TWC have been going on for years.

TWC, please do not say how this is about others. You are the common factor here. I've asked you to dial it back before, and you have remained right near the line.

Your mainspace edits make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, but your back page edits make it a worse place to be. It repels other contributors and that costs Wikipedia valuable edits. That sort of behaviour is something the entire community is strongly against.

Please enter the zone where almost all others dwell: the friendly and collegial zone. You will wear out your welcome if you continue. Thank you in advance for your new and improved manner. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay Anna. - wolf 12:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I have found from a fairly recent previous experience ironing out a dispute between Thewolfchild and another editor on Talk:Seven (1995 film) that TWC is perfectly capable of editing intelligently, collaboratively and politely. TWC the lesson perhaps yet to be learned is when you keep a lid on your temper and edit collegiately, you get better results and less stress. Fish+Karate 13:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Nationalistic editors clearly obstructing addition of perfectly sourced content just because they don´t like it

Editors User:Resnjari, User:Calthinus and User:Ktrimi991 (pinged, thus notified) have ben for some time behaving as if they Wikipedia:OWN all ALbanian-related articles. They have been acting coordiantelly in a way to control the conent in the articles and expell any one they dislike. Their method is to revert and then make endless discusions at talk-pages knowing time runs on their favour. At Skanderbeg I have been trying to expand some aspects they have been preventing me for doing it, despite me having almost 10 sources. Can someone please come and assist? FkpCascais (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

For more information, please see: Talk:Skanderbeg#Skanderbeg_origin,_sources. FkpCascais (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I've only had a quick look at this, but if you want your sources to be accepted as possible evidence of Skanderbeg's Serbian ancestry, you will need to accept words like "possible", which you seem to have flatly refused to do so far. It is not true that you can't use primary sources, but they need to be weighed up against the overall body of evidence. Deb (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Deb. I am still gathering sources, there are quite many, and lets see what they say so we add the most corectly as possible in the article the information. FkpCascais (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Deb, within the article Skanderbeg, origins is a thorny issue. The article is covered under WP:MOSMAC which also covers other Balkan related topics. In situations like this wp:secondary is best to avoid POV, edits wars and other complications.Resnjari (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

"Nationalistic" editors is a personal attack. And it is not the first. FkpCascais has been running a one-man show against the opposition of not only myself, but also Ktrimi, Resnjari, Jingiby and occasionally others as well. The only person to agree with him that tons of text about Skanderbeg's alleged Serbian origin was a banned sock puppet and an IP, possibly the same person, who recently impersonated myself, and posted death threats to me, Ktrimi and Resnjari. Sanguine isn't it? --Calthinus (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

FkpCascais, you should not notify just with pings. You should notify via the talk page. Anyways, I have already filed a report [103]. An admin fully-protected the article a few days ago and warned FkpCascais with a block in case he reverted again [104]. Since the full-protection expired, FkpCascais has made 3 other reverts within a few hours. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems it was you who was wanrned not to revert anymore. Why you lie it was me? FkpCascais (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

FkpCascais, please enough of the personal attacks. At least withdraw them through a strikethrough and show good faith toward other editors.Resnjari (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's not get bogged down with the issue of reverting. FkpCascais will get blocked if he breaks the rules, and likewise if he makes personal attacks, so he needs to practise self-control. But there is a deeper issue, which is whether his edits have any basis in fact. It may be worth including the fact that some contemporary writers said there was Serbian ancestry, and setting it against the sources that say differently. Deb (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Dab. I admit I am heated because I am alone facing a group of editors clearly wanting to dismiss my concerns. FkpCascais (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Deb, the writers of sources used by FkpCascais were not contemporaries of Skanderbeg. Additions by the editor are wp:undue. Resnjari (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

My understanding was that the objection to the use of one particular source was "Spandouginos is wp:primary and ... some 500 years old." That makes it very close to the subject's lifetime. I would recommend FkpCascais, rather than continuing this argument, to go away and draft some better wording and leave the article itself alone for a few days. Then he can come back with his proposed wording and get your input. It's possible a compromise can be reached, which is always preferable. Deb (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Deb, the objection is to multiple sources bought by the editor and its outlined in the talkpage. In the article over the years editors have refrained from using primary sources and used secondary sources to avoid this kind of thing. Otherwise it becomes a free for all and editing warring left, right and centre, something which the article has manged to overall avoid for some years until now.Resnjari (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Deb: Thanks for your suggestions. I hope the content dispute is solved as soon as possible. FkpCascais reverted 4 times and

an admin fully-protected the article a few days ago and warned FkpCascais with a block in case he reverted again [105]. Since the full-protection expired, FkpCascais has made 3 other reverts within a few hours. Is FkpCascais allowed to do so? If yes, only him or all editors? Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop lying that I was warned. Please present the diff where I was allegedly warned by an admin or apologise for missinforming intentionally at ANI report. FkpCascais (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, they will be so happy with that, but the problem is that the version they are reverting to, is unsourced, and disregards totally the ammount of sources backing the claim of Serbian origin. Would you agree with me that unsourced claims shoudlnt be aded in the article, and that each claim should stick to their own sources? FkpCascais (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, Deb, please, could you just see the sources I provided and make a fair suggestion for an edit to be made? FkpCascais (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Deb i understand where your coming from. It shows your good character that you are assuming good faith here, and it is a trait I admire. But the problem is not that simple. To better understand the situation, read what FkpCascais says: [106]. You can see the whole claim where he goes on to say that just as Albania's creation was a plot to block Serbia from the sea, he says that "Slavic" Romania was "latinized" in order to prevent Slavic unity. For example, he says that

The then totally absurd creation of Albania was supported by Vatican and Austria and done in order to prevent an Slavic-Orthodox by then pro-Russian country as Serbia to access sea right in Italy back... Western world seing the danger of Russian naval bases in the Adriatic is their nighmare... This move not only prevented Serbia from accessing the sea and clearing the area of Muslims, but created a Muslim country Albania... Vatican lobbied all around in order to prevent Serbia to expand naturally to West and absorve Bosia but rather giving it to Catholic Austria.

This is clear Islamophobic, anti-Catholic and anti-Albanian. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The edits at the Skanderbeg article are just part of a wider pattern of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by the editor through WP:BATTLEGROUND behavoir and this thread here by them is WP:BOOMERANG. To @FkpCascais, these comments of yours are just disappointing and gross.Resnjari (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment I find the sandbox rant that Ktrimi discovered extremely disturbing (especially the part about how Serbia would have "cleared the area of Muslims".... see also : Ethnic cleansing) and I don't want to draw attention away from that. At the same time, I must report that FkpCascais is now casting WP:ASPERSIONs against BLDM [calling him a "clear sock"] who was "just" created for somehow simultaneously myself, Resnjari and Ktrimi991. This is incredibly obviously false -- I have not had any interaction with BLDM, and he has a long edit history before now [[107]]. Additionally, he referred to Resnjari, myself and Ktrimi991 as "mosqueteers" -- I am not Muslim, but this is incredibly obvious religious baiting. --Calthinus (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Stating that a different opinion is "anti this and that" is a great example of manipulative use of universal human right to freedom of speech and a way to present the user who made the report in a bad light, as if that would change the stated facts. If FkpCascais has the sources for his edits (and he does have them), it is up to administrators to guarantee his respected edits, despite emotional and heated reactions from several users who simply refuse to offer Wikipedia's readers other insights into Skenderbeg's origin. I am assured that such edits and editors are against the core foundations i.e. values of Wiki. Mm.srb (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Mm.srb, since you refer to freedom of speech here do you mean the personal attacks like "mosqueteers" and so on by @FkpCascais? Regarding the edits, editors have ad nausuem outlined their concerns with the sources on the talkpage.Resnjari (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Um, no, Mm.Srb, FkpCascais stigmatizing users based on their (percieved) Muslim faith by calling them "mosqueteers" accomplishes absolutely nothing, and worse, it is religious baiting. Please explain to me how this is conducive to being here to build an encyclopedia in a collegial manner?--Calthinus (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

ALL I have made an effort to suggest options for settling this amicably. However, it appears that none of those involved want to attempt a compromise. If other admins want to chip in with alternatives, they are welcome to do so. Otherwise, it's back to the article's Talk page for all of you. Deb (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Since when are mosqueteers Muslim? I didn´t even knew that. I call mosqueteers groups of editors that act together. So stop playing the racism card. FkpCascais (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• This needs to lead to a boomerang sanction against the filer, User:FkpCascais. There's rampant edit-warring, breaking 3RR just today on Skanderbeg, resuming an edit-war right after the article came off protection. The battleground attitude in this thread here and the lawyering over whether it was him or the other party that was warned by the previous protecting admin (when the warning was quite obviously directed at both) is also quite worrisome. There's a history of disruption, with blocks and discretionary sanctions going back at least to 2010. Finally, the user draft rant pointed out above (User:FkpCascais/Sandbox48) is really so bad we shouldn't have this person editing in this topic area at all. Unless I hear some good objections from fellow admins, I intend to impose a wide-ranging topic ban under WP:ARBMAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I didnt touch the article and I ask for advice. Would you be kind andallow me to make a draft to present to the community as suggested by Deb? PS: My sandbox is somehting personal and has nothing to do with Wikipedia ediitng. FkpCascais (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I pretend to gather sources at the talk-page and then, along with the communty, see what a proper edit would be. I will not edit the article meantime. I am an over decade long editor, will you please be kind to give me this last chance? I know I got upset because I made a majo effort to gather sources and they weer ignored and my edits are ruthlesly erased. I promise to be calm and to keep myself gathering sources and proposing solutions at talk-page only. If they get dismissed, I will walk away. Can you Fut.Perf. give me this chance please? FkpCascais (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
    • You "didn't touch the article"? You were breaking 3RR just 12 hours ago: [108][109][110][111], the second time since a few days ago [112][113][114][115]. You have had a years-long presence on the same article, always feuding over the same tired and WP:LAME ethnic trivia. And as for your userspace sandbox, if it has "nothing to do with Wikipedia editing", then why did you create it? (You know, we're not a free web host here). But whatever it was meant for, in that draft you have outed yourself as a person who sees ethnic cleansing as the natural right of your own ethnic group, complaining about how your nation was unfairly prevented from expanding throughout present-day Albania and "clearing the area of Muslims". I have as little tolerance for people who advocate ethnic cleansing as I have for racists and holocaust deniers; they all get instant bans as far as I'm concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
      • That same text receved prises fom Albanians themselves, and it doesn´t show "my POV" but it is a text removed from somewhere else. Anyway, can you allow me please to focus on content, see sources I can still bring, and let the community decide. Whatever decide, I am OK, and I will movee on, cause I have other areas I want to expand. FkpCascais (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
        • You said you want to "let the community decide", and have been saying this for a long time. As you said earlier today, you think that "walking away giving them a victory doesn´t sound a good solution at all" [116]. I do not want to make assumptions about you, but it seems to me that you continue to divide editors in line with their perceived nationality, and see Wikipedia as a game to win. This is very wrong. During the warring you misused your rollback rights twice [117] [118]. IMO, this should conclude with you sanctioned at least for massive edit warring and rollback rights removed. The Balkans need editors but editors should calm down and stop making personal attacks, get involved in warring etc. Thanks, Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
          • • OK, I accept I was wrong with my attitude. I will limit to post at talk-page whenever I feel I have somehting. Otherwise, I was planning to give it a reast as Deb suggested anyway, cause hollydays are comming. FPS, would you give me a benefit of a doubt? FkpCascais (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction imposed

Taking into account this thread and FkpCascais's prior editing and blocks, I conclude that FkpCascais is editing primarily to promote a particular nationalist point of view on Wikipedia, in violation of WP:NPOV's conduct aspect ("Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another."); in addition to several related conduct problems. Such a pattern of editing is not compatible with the mission of Wikipedia. FkpCascais was previously notified about the possibility of discretionary sanctions. In response to their conduct, and in application of WP:AC/DS, FkpCascais is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from everything related to the Balkans. I'm ready to consider lifting this ban after six months of productive, problem-free editing in other topic areas. This matches the recommendation by Fut.Perf. above. Sandstein 13:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

systematic erasure of "External links" section from multiple articles without discussion

User:Ronz has been systematically erasing the entire "External Links" section from major articles. it started with his erasure on Military history saying that list of 11 items violated WP:EL. This led to a long discussion on the talk page Talk:Military history where I strongly opposed his actions, I was supported by two other editors but no one supported Ronz. He admitted he had not actually looked at any of the external links. He claimed that ":The bottom line is that such articles such broad topics generally don't have much in the way of an External links section beyond a link to a directory site." to demonstrate he was wrong, I produced a list of major articles that in fact did have "external links" of comparable length, including * Military history has eleven; Economic History has 24 external links; Historiography has eleven; etc etc. his response is to go through my list of articles begin to erase its entire external links section. see [119] that includes [120], and [121] Is that edit warring or it plain vandalism? Rjensen (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

User_talk:Rjensen#I_think_there_are_better_ways_to_address_this --Ronz (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I never could 'really' tell the difference between an External Links section & a Reference section. Some articles have both, some only the former & some have only the latter. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

No he's still at it. Ronz just now erased ALL the external links to History of medicine with no reason. Rjensen (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:INDENT, I believe BMK was responding to 'my' post. GoodDay (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

GoodDay, imagine a web before the internet existed, where the integrity of facts is built on references. External links are to information we cannot provide for whatever reason, copyright and … perhaps someone who has read the linked guidance can provide another exception. This is my rule of thumb, I hope this provides some clarity to the difference. Have a good day, if that needs to be said. cygnis insignis 10:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

External link bloat is a major issue with many articles here. A well developed article should have very few external links as most of the information contained in them should already be presented in the article. Exceptions may be for long list or other interesting content that is impractical to present. Either way this is a content issue and it should be decided at the talk pages what links should stay or go. AIRcorn (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Are we an encyclopedia or are we a link farm? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
• WP:ELNO. GiantSnowman 11:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

A better way to phrase the question is are we the last stop for learning history or a guide to further learning. In history articles, information includes both details on a past event and ways to find out more about these and other past events, and how different perspectives and sources can be used. Rjensen (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

140.213.5.50

140.213.5.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

03:58, 14 December 2018 diff hist -10‎ Persija Jakarta ‎ Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, possible vandalism 03:44, 14 December 2018 diff hist -28‎ Persija Jakarta ‎ →‎Coaching Staff Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit 03:43, 14 December 2018 diff hist -455‎ Persija Jakarta ‎ →‎Current Squad Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit 03:38, 14 December 2018 diff hist -3,994‎ Persija Jakarta ‎ Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, section blanking 03:34, 14 December 2018 diff hist -9‎ Persija Jakarta ‎ Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, possible vandalism

This IP address continue to deleting contect on that article. Please pay attention to this IP or user to avoid vandalism.

Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoso627 (talk • contribs) 04:28, December 14, 2018 (UTC)

I left edit warring notices for both users. Perhaps they can work out their differences at Talk:Persija Jakarta. Bradv🍁 04:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)