User talk:JBW/Archive 71

This is an archive of past discussions with User:JBW. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 65

←

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

→

Archive 75

This account, created in 2011, is only used every now and then, but in most cases edits have been disruptive vandalism. The latest edit at Belling the cat is the first in well over a year, but it's part of a continuous pattern. In the cases like this it seems present policy to close the address down. What's your thinking? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mzilikazi1939: I actually found this an interesting case to investigate, and for what it's worth are here the thoughts I went through as I checked this out.

1. Most administrators would take the line that with only one edit in well over a year all past edits are irrelevant, as it is almost certainly a totally different person using the same IP address, so they would treat it as a new editor with only one edit, and so no administrative action would be justified.
2. I prefer, however, to check the editing history. Very occasionally even an IP address which edits only very rarely shows a pattern of similar edits which makes it clear beyond all reasonable doubt that it's the same person, and in that case a block is just as much justified for an IP address as it would be for an account.
3. Although all the edits from the IP address were vandalism, they did not show any pattern of being similar vandalism, so there is no reason to think it's the same person. If I had stopped there I would have decided there was no reason for any administrative action.
4. However, the editing looked so very much like vandalism from a school that I checked, and confirmed that it is indeed one of a block of IP addresses assigned to a school district in Virginia.
5. Checking the history of the whole block of IP addresses I found that there has been continuing vandalism all the time, ever since July 2011. In this kind of situation, because there is a large number of addresses, only a few of them come up on any one IP address, so for a very long time nobody sees the whole pattern, and IP addresses are not blocked or at the most are blocked for very short periods, whereas if the same thing happened with a single IP address it would be blocked for a long time. I have blocked the IP range for several years.
6. I reckon more than 90% of administrators would have stopped at step 1 above if you had reported it to them, and nothing would have been done.

Thanks for letting me know about this. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for being so thorough - and, of course, as good a detective as Holmes himself! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello James, could this user Molobi34 be the same person as the already blocked Papiko73 and Skop94? Same edit style (Draft & move). —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Oluwa2Chainz: I have looked at the editing history, including the deleted edits, and there is no doubt about it at all, so I have blocked the account. Thanks for letting me know about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I happen to know Hayat Foundation, but I built my content from their website and some materials or contents I could find about them too. This is my first article, so I didn't expect it to be perfect but can you help me understand better how to come up with a neutral content. I actually followed your advice but it seems I'm not understanding you correctly.Toni of Paytron (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Usually problems like that can be fixed by prefixing "1=" to the comment parameter, as "{{atop|1=There is nothing here...". ―Mandruss ☎ 14:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Yes, I realised that after a while, but by then the mistake had already been corrected. Thanks anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. By me. With no "1=" necessary. Take care! — fortunavelut luna 15:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello James. Could you add a page of French Internet personality Paul Darbos please? I’m his manager and I can’t add him on English Wikipedia. Please just create a page for him. Best regards, Jordan Advim (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes James--you should get on Twitter. Tweet some obvious stuff, about how you went to the movies or whatever, get two million followers, and voila. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• There is not just that. I'm just asking for a page.

Advim (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

So could you create it please? Advim (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Me? No, I have no interest in writing up a "social media personality". Drmies (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Advim: I have searched for information about him. Almost everything I found about him was on sites such as Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, or his own web site. He has a page on IMDb which is completely empty, as he has never (as far as I can find) taken any part in making any commercial film. He has a page on vine.co, which says "0 posts". (Vine describes itself as "The entertainment network where videos and personalities get really big, really fast".) He has a page on stagelink.com which has no content at all except for a photograph of him. (Stagelink describes itself as "the fan-powered tour promoter".) It is evident that what we have here is someone who for some reason has decided to totally dedicate himself to publicising himself and getting as many "followers" as he can on social web sites. He posts about himself (or you do, or others working with him or for him do: it makes no difference) on as many web sites as he can, even where he actually has no content at all to put there, evidently to get as much publicity as he can. Anyone who puts a significant amount of work into doing that can get a lot of "followers". There is absolutely nothing, as far as I can find, to suggest that he has any more significance than that: just someone who is obsessed with publicising himself. He clearly does not come anywhere remotely near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and if any article about him were created it would just get deleted. No doubt your request for a Wikipedia article about him is part of the campaign to publicise him, but Wikipedia is not a medium for publicising, promoting, or advertising anyone or anything, so you would be better advised to put your time and effort into promoting him on sties which do provide that kind of service. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, James, It's Mzilikazi1939 with a log in problem. I seem to have unlogged and WP will not log me in again with my usual password. I've requested change of password but it does not send it to my email...and in fact has not been sending notifications to that address for several weeks. This may not be your area of expertise, but I'd appreciate knowing who would best be able to help. Thanks in advance. 78.151.173.252 (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey. James doesn't seem to be around right now. I suggest you post on WP:ANI. It's watched by people with the most surprising kinds of expertise, who may be able to guide/assist you. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC).

Thx, have done so. -Mzilikazi1939 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.173.252 (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing very useful posted there so far. I'll try for a password reset after the 24 hours are up using another email account - one that I'd rather not use since it gives a clue to my identity. Mzilikazi1939 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.173.252 (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that didn't work either. The problem seems to reside in a failed attempt to set up a new Google account using the Mzilikazi name, so there's no email associated with it. Surely there's an Administrator who can authenticate via the IP that I am who I claim to be (it happened when WP Editor accused me of socking back in 2014) and then offer a way out of my dilemma. Creating a new personality is a poor option; I have over 400 articles on my old watch list. 78.151.173.252 (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile (sigh!) Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a newly registered user taking a self-righteous line in his edits on Indian/Hindu topics who is potentially disruptive. Nobody seems to have left a note on his talk page so far and I wondered if you could point out to him the relevant guidelines, explain about using the talk page before making contentious edits, and of course warn him that an IP running about berserk is ultimately liable to blocking. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: As a first step I would post a friendly warning explaining why his or her editing is not considered helpful, and, as you say, pointing out the relevant guidelines. I would reserve warnings of a possible block for use if the editor continues after more friendly messages, and even then I would avoid such language as "running about berserk". I may come back and offer him or her some advice when I get a chance, but at the moment I don't have time to do so. However, is there any reason you don't wish to do it yourself? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

"Running about berserk" was for your amusement. Hopefully Sweetpool is a less abrasive personality than Mzilikazi (historically) was! The Sweetpool page, despite the redirect - which only works when you come from Mzilikazi's page - makes him seem a very recent editor and I thought a message from him might not impress a fellow new editor. However, I will do as you say and keep the situation monitored. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You also deleted one of these once. Could you please take a look at it because it keeps recurring. Check the creator's history and talk page. I've blocked the user and I hope I've done the right thing. Thanks.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Yes, and also Bjoe Deinla. I do think you've done the right thing in blocking. The editor has never done anything other than vandalism, mostly creating hoax articles, and following the warnings he received on 21 August 2015, the recent edits have been more than enough to justify a block. If there were any doubt about the fact that his editing is still the same kind of vandalism as before, comparing this with Zac Efron would dispel that doubt. The one thing that you did that I wouldn't have done is protecting one of the titles he used. That has no chance at all of achieving anything useful, since history shows that he will just move to another version of the title. What is more, it may even be counterproductive, because if he comes back as a sockpuppet and reuses the same title again (as he did with Bjoe deinla) then we can be watching it and deal with it, whereas if we force him to change to another title by salting the old ones then we can't be watching his new titles, so he is likely to get away with it. Because of that you may like to consider whether to lift the protection that you placed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Makes sense, I'll unsalt. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi James,

I am sorry but I'm confused now, could you please explain why I got this email on the first place? Did that user edited my page or what? Can this page be deleted? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Freakofnurture/Sandbox&diff=next&oldid=363314402 Thank you in advance.

Please see Wikipedia:Teahouse#How to get started if you feel like explaining the deletion. I would respond myself, but I can't see the thing. GMG^talk 13:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi James. Am I correct in assuming you fixed the history of the 2 above mentioned pages to better reflect their individual histories? I did notice when I created the page, some of my sandbox history was there too. If so, thanks for that! Robvanvee 13:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robvanvee: Yes. I tried to check the early history of Dagga Couple, and found a lot of stuff there which had nothing to do with Dagga Couple, and to prevent other editors getting confused by it I decided to remove it from the editing history. It would probably have been good enough to just delete it, but I have sometimes known doing that to lead to future confusion if there are further deletions and then something happens which leads to an administrator needing to check, or even to restore, old deleted revisions. I doubt that will ever happen for Dagga Couple, but rather than make a judgement each time, and sometimes get it wrong, I prefer to always move the old revisions away from the article's deleted history. Moving it back to where it originally came from (your sandbox) and then deleting it again seemed to be the most obvious way to do that. Perhaps I should have let you know, as it involved editing in your user space, but it didn't seem important since I was going to delete it anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks again! Robvanvee 14:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, JamesB. Just a heads-up regarding 2607:FCC8:BBC0:9800:BC5F:AE0:1EB:522E. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you check your reverts of the IP before clicking "save"? In some cases you are restoring blatant spelling errors. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: Assuming you are referring to the editor that I guess you are, I explicitly included an invitation to restore good edits, because I was aware there were some, and where I was aware of them I avoided reverting them. However, I made a calculated decision that the damage due to reverting some of those would be less than the damage which would be caused by leaving the disruptive editor's edits as they were, and it would have been impracticable to individually check every edit from an editor who has made thousands of edits, many of them harmful. There is also the fact that conveying the message that every edit is likely to be reverted is the most effective tool we have for discouraging an editor with a very long history of evading blocks from continuing, which shifts the balance of benefit further towards reverting almost everything rather than leaving almost everything. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: So you're forcing us to proofread you instead? That's not any easier. The majority of your edits have been restoring spelling or grammatical errors. Please proofread before you revert since deliberately introducing grammatical and spelling errors is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thanks. Smartyllama (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Which part of what I said above do you disagree with? You evidently don't think that what you are referring to is a matter of making mistakes, either by misfortune or by negligence, as you used the word "deliberately". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

One error could be a mistake. Even a few errors over the course of several thousand reverts could be expected. But when over half the reverts are erroneous, that's not a mistake. At best, it's recklessness. Smartyllama (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi James, There hasn't been a single constructive edit from this address since it was registered in Dec. 2015. Could you investigate, as you did recently? Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: Yet another example of a very familiar situation. An IP range is the source of many hundreds of vandalism edits over many years (in this case more than five years). A few of the individual IP addresses get blocked for a while, but most of them don't, because nobody thinks to check the contributions for the whole range, so they see only a few vandalism edits from one IP address, rather than seeing the whole picture. Except that this time there is one slight difference: the whole range did once get blocked, but for only a month. I don't see any point in that, as the few vandalism edits it stands to stop are trivial in proportion to the hundreds that it allows to continue. Anyway, I have blocked the range for several years. Thanks for letting me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: I wouldn't have bothered to explain all that to you if I had remembered that Mzilikazi1939 was your alter ego, as I had already explained it to Mzilikazi1939. Oh, well, never mind. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

A good story always bears repeating! Thanks again for your thoroughness. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

good reads such as this. Jim1138 (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You should have kept quiet about it, Jim. Reading your message here prompted me to look at the editor's editing again, and I have now ruined even more opportunities for you to have fun. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Aargh! Jim1138 (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

James, I noticed you spent the last few days chasing the LA area IP who adds poorly spelled/grammatically incorrect contributions all over enWP. It appears he's evading his block again, this time as User:2605:E000:151E:C335:0:E921:46FA:32B7. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Drmargi: The edits from that IP address do look rather like some edits I have recently seen while checking the editing history of some other IP addresses. However, a quick look over a sample of the edits didn't immediately throw up any obvious problems, and I didn't notice the kinds of spelling and grammar problems that you refer to. Can you be more specific as to why you think this is the same person? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson. You removed quite a bit of content from Cannabis in South Africa which was added as result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daggafari with this edit. It was subsequently re-added so I removed it, but it has been re-added again. Would you ming taking a look at it and seeing if it needs to be removed again? If not, then that's fine with me. MickeyDangerez seems to be under the impression that your AfD close was for only certain content in the Daggafari article and not the entire article itself. That might make sense if the close was a merge, but it doesn't seem as that is what you intended. Maybe I'm wrong, so I apologize if I am. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks for pointing this out to me. Another editor has removed the content again. If that had not happened I probably would not have done so, as I don't wish to get into edit-warring. However, to me this was the last straw from an editor for whom the question was almost certainly when, not if, an indefinite block would come, and I have blocked the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. FWIW, I did try to discuss this content, among other things, with the other editor at Talk:Cannabis in South Africa, but they seemed to take a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to Wikipedia from their very first edit. A block is unfortunate, but was perhaps, as you say, inevitable given that approach. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi again JamesBWatson. Unfortunately this editor does not seem to be able to move past WP:NOTTHEM and trying to WP:RGW against the "dictatorship" of Wikipedia, etc. He had another unblock request declined and his immediate respnse was to cry foul and claim the reviewing admin was not being helpful. In addtion, the editor has continued to make claims against others and try and engage them on his user talk, instead of focusing on WP:GAB and figuring out how to get unblocked. I was going to try to explain to him why these things are not a good idea, especially when currently blocked, but I decided that would likely only add more fuel to his already burning fire. He has filed another unblock request, but I'm not sure that unblocking the account without some strong conditions would be wise. Perhaps offering WP:OFFER to be followed by topic ban on anything related to cannabis/South Africa/images for an additional six months or so might be warranted. Once his time is up, he can be encouraged to find other ways to be WP:HERE would be a way for the editor to learn more about Wikipedia (especially WP:NOT) and give the community a chance to monitor his edits and assess them. If after all this, he is able to demonstrate a better understanding of Wikipedia, all the conditions can be removed with the caveat that reverting back to his previous form would lead to an immediate block. I figured I'd ask you about this since you are the blocking admin, which means you can create the conditions for an unblock, and because I'm not sure if it needs to be discussed at WP:ANI. FWIW, if this latest unblocked request is declined and the editor still continues to rant, I believe that his user talk page access might need to be revoked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

He just blanked his user talk, which he can do, but in the process removed declined unblock request which is not allowed per WP:BLANKING. He also left a non-English edit sum which may be more lashing out. I was going to restore the declined unblock request, but that will almost certainly lead to edit warring on his part. It seems like there's not many options left other than removing user talk page access. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Last unblock request was declined and this time user talk page access was revoked by Max Semenik. FWIW, the subject of a topic ban and the standard offer was brought up by Deacon Vorbis, but that was rejected. Anyway, sorry for bringing this drama to your user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I swear I didn't see your comments here, and I made those suggestions completely independently. Maybe that means I've been hanging around here too much and have been assimilated. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: No need to apologise for bringing this drama to my user talk page, as it's really rather amusing. As for your suggestions, you are clearly more optimistic about the editor than me. I have long been under the impression that he has no intention whatever of changing his attitude, and is never likely to be WP:HERE, no matter what offers we might make. Having said that, however, I am not against giving editors a chance, even if it seems unlikely that they will take it, unless "unlikely" becomes "virtually inconceivable". As for talk page access being lost, I always felt the same about the prospect of that as I said above that I felt about the prospect of an indefinite block: it was a question of when, not if. It's a real pity, because some of what MickeyDangerez said was reasonable, and he could have been a useful contributor if only he had been able to (a) listen to others (b) realise that in a collaborative project one has to compromise, rather than insisting on getting 100% of what one thinks is right, and (c) realise that "neutral point of view" doesn't mean "whatever I personally am convinced is the correct point of view".

@Deacon Vorbis: Hmm. The idea of the Wikipedia community gradually assimilating its members into a collective mind is an interesting one. I suppose the ones we indef-block are ones that we decide are unsuitable for assimilation for some reason. Did the Borg ever make that decision about any "life forms"? I don't remember it happening, but surely it must have done. There has to be a limit to what one will let into one's own mind.

On a different note, I have just read your last post at User talk:MickeyDangerez, and I really don't think anyone could have made better attempt to reach out to the editor and try to give him every chance to come back. However, there's no helping those who won't be helped. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

As an editor who has been repeatedly, falsely accused by this user of WP:COI, WP:Promo and deliberately misleading people, accusations I take very seriously, I too have decided not to engage with him so as to avoid adding fuel to his already burning fire. I agree with Marchjuly that a topic ban may be the only way forward if an unblock request was ever granted. However, judging by his article main space edits (6.4%) vs talk page edits, I'm not so sure he is here to build an encyclopedia rather than to push his own agenda. Robvanvee 09:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robvanvee: I agree with everything you say except for one detail. You say you are "not so sure" he is here to build an encyclopedia rather than to push his own agenda, whereas I would say that I am sure that he isn't here to build an encyclopedia rather than to push his own agenda. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey. Could you elaborate a bit on what caused you to range block 107.77.128.0/17? That's quite a wide range from a major mobile provider in the United States (AT&T). The collateral appears to be quite large. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I did it in connection with long-term persistent disruptive editing by a serial sockpuppeteer. That person has been editing disruptively, using a number of accounts and IP addresses, since at least as far back as January of this year, and has used IP addresses in the range in question since at least as far back as June. When I checked the most recent edits from the range I saw that virtually all of them were either from that disruptive editor or else vandalism apparently from other editors, such as these: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. That persuaded me that the risk of collateral damage was minimal. However, checking now I see that the same proportion of vandalism edits does not hold further back down the editing history. I may possibly have checked a sample of earlier edits and by chance happened to get a high proportion of vandalism, but I am more inclined to think that what happened was that on the basis of what I saw I intended to make a short block, and making it a month was a mistake. Any way, whatever the reason was I agree with you that the likely level of collateral damage is too great for a block of such a length, so I shall unblock. Thank you for drawing my attention to this. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

For future reference, there were 4 ACC requests from this range in the ~48-72 hours since the block, and this range is edited on so heavily be registered and unregistered editors that the CU tool literally cannot check the full range to get a true sense of the collateral. In an active period of disruption, a short-term (~31 hour) block may work, but anything longer term will be very iffy. Thanks for taking another look! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Obviously unlike you I can see only the unregistered edits, and I also have to take your word about the CU tool, but even on the basis of what I can see I would not normally have made a block like that. Having thought about it more, I am almost certain that I intended a 24 hour block. Any way, as you have no doubt seen I have lifted the block, and I will be careful to avoid doing the same sort of thing again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, appreciated. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I wrote an article on myself to put me down, but ithe was deleted, and now I can't be depressed 😤🅱OI BlueZed (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Another case needing your detection skills. Intermittent edits since 2010, mostly vandalism. Continual warnings and short blocks in 2015 and 2016. Probably another school which will reveal much more such activity. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: Yes, I agree that it looks rather like a school, but it may not be. However, in more than nine months since the last block expired there have been only five edits, two of which were unambiguously vandalism, and two were unexplained removal of unsourced content, probably vandalism but not necessarily. That is not enough to justify a block. Checking edits from related IP addresses found some more vandalism, but a lot more constructive editing, and the editing from most of the IP addresses did not look like the typical pattern from a school. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

In the event it's helpful. Any chance Weathereditor (talk · contribs) could be involved? Tiderolls 17:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: Could well be the same person as 134.225.100.129. As I mentioned in a comment which is now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Weathertrustchannel/Archive, that IP address is from England, and so are IP addresses believed to be IP sockpuppets of Weathereditor. There is also far more similarity in the choice of articles to edit between 134.225.100.129 and /Weathertrustchannel & socks than there is between them and Weathertrustchannel & socks. However, I haven't yet seen enough to make it certain. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, JamesB. I've noticed edits from 213.205.XXX.XXX have suddenly become combative and removing content for no reason other than they don't like it. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Ponyo beat you to a rangeblock. Let's see if 31 hours does any good. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed your edit summary and I wondered if you were aware of {{Reflist-talk}}? You just stick it in a talk page section and get a handy local ref list in a pretty box. (Apologies if this is an egg-sucking lesson, but I just thought I'd mention it.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: No, I'm not a grandmother, so no apologies are required. I have tested the template out in a sandbox, and I found it actually gives all references above the point in the page where I put it, or all from the last use of the template if there is more than one on a page, not just those within a section, as the documentation seems to imply. I suppose that doesn't matter so long as one puts a copy of the template at the bottom of each section which contains refs. However, I don't see any advantage in having the link in a box at the bottom of the section rather than as a blue link at the point in the discussion where it is relevant, so I don't think I'll start using it. Thanks for letting me know, though.

On another matter, since you saw my edit summary you will have seen my use of that wonderful English word apgesw, and you may possibly be wondering what it means. It means "Please try to remember in future to always proof-read everything, including edit summaries, before clicking the save button. I really don't know how many times I've told you, and you never seem to learn." The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Well, even while posting the message above I managed to use taht, which is of course a synonym of apgesw. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I actually mostly use that template in article talk pages where people have been including a large number of refs in various sections, and sticking one in each relevant section is easier than unraveling each individual ref. But yes, it's of less benefit in user talk pages. And yes, one of the things I hate about edit summaries is seeing the typo a fraction of a second before hitting the return key but not being able to stop! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Yes, I have seen the template used in the way you describe, and I agree it's the best method once a large number of refs have been added, though I still regard it as a poor second best to just using inline links in the first place. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've seen that you mentioned me in the page of another user of Wikipedia called "Lommaren" who has been blaming me for doing "vandalizations" on Wikipedia just because I linked 2 non official sources to the climate pages of Benidorm and Gandia, but they're the only sources available for it, and they aren't just amateur blogs or something like that.

My last edit on the Lampedusa page was more than 2 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lampedusa&oldid=679719516 and i've been as well discovering sockpuppets of User:Gaditano23, some of those who are vandalizing Lampedusa as well as others. For example I discovered this user: User:Farangizsaifi who was a confirmed sockpuppet of Gaditano23. I don't know if you asked if i'm a sockpuppet of someone (I understood that while reading your comment on his talk page) but i'm a member of Wikipedia since 2012 and I never used any other account. I even had a small block in the past for an edit war and I waited for my 3-day block to expire. Anyways, I explained in Matthew's talk page what is happening here. Not sure who that "Lommaren" is and why is he blaming me for sourced edits on 2 non-related articles. He calls me a "vandal" and stuff which is senseless. --TechnicianGB (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@TechnicianGB: I noticed that an editor had mentioned you, and I recognised your user name as one that I had come across while I was checking a sockpuppet investigation. As I said in the talk page post you saw, there was no indication that your account was in any way linked to the ones I was investigating, so I didn't look into it any further. However, when I later saw that an editor had suggested that you had been responsible for vandalism I did check your editing history, and I found nothing in any way suspicious. Since that editor had made an allegation against you without any substantiation, I asked him or her what evidence there is. I actually have no reason to suspect you of anything apart from that editor's unsubstantiated word, and I am not accusing you of anything, but I would like to know whether that editor has any reasons for suspicion or is just making accusations without any reason. I should probably have told you right away what I had in mind, and I apologise for not doing so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem! i'm even more surprised than you are. I don't even know that person and he says I told him who knows what in "a forum". He's acussing me on vandalizing the pages of Gandia and Benidorm probably just because he doesn't approve the climatic numbers (yet they're real but stated that one is just of 3 years and the other is maded up between 2 sources) and before even trying to discuss with me, he took profit to write that on Matthew's page, as Matthew just asked him something about the page Lampedusa- I'm even more surprised than you are, all of this is pretty senseless for me. Someone who I never "crossed" before in Wikipedia, starts directly to blame me for vandalizing 2 pages where I've put sources to prove those numbers. Weird situation but anyways, I don't have any problem! Regards --TechnicianGB (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I just ask you to check the sources for Benidorm and Gandia and judge if they are legitimate or not. It is evident the user is fairly nervous about this since he pretends he does not know who I am and starts talking about other Mediterranean edits he has made in the past for no particular reason, when I have been trying to remove his unreliable/unsourced material several times. Having said that, now I have reported it and you can check Benidorm and Gandia and decide. I would just like unsourced material removed from Wikipedia. The norm is 15 or 30-year weatherbox averages, three years are not an accurate sample. Best wishes! Lommaren (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No one is nervous about your accusations, as they are false. Again, I asked you in the other talk page to directly talk with me (as you're the only one not agreeing that data) and you still keep this mood. Matthew yesterday asked you about your edits on Lampedusa, yet you wrote this [8] doing a senseless attack against me in his talk page, saying that "I should be banned" or that "I vandalize pages" and look, JamesBWatson just checked my edits and seen no vandalization there. I told him exactly about the Gandia and Benidorm wiki climate data above, so don't play games. The data is properly sourced, and there isn't any norm for 15-30 averages unless if official data is available, lots of locations have very short averages with non official sources. There isn't an official station in both places... Oh, and not sure from which other past "Mediterranean edits" was I talking? --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lommaren and TechnicianGB: My only interest in this was checking for sockpuppets of a long term vandal, and I really didn't wish to get involved in disputes over sourcing which were not related to that. However, now that we have got this far I decided to at least have a look at the sources. As a first step I looked at this edit, and arbitrarily selected the October maximum temperature, which TechnicianGB changed from 24.8 to 25.4. There are four references at the bottom of the table in the article, though they are grouped into pairs, labelled Source #1 and Source #2. Of the two #1 sources, as far as I can see the page linked at www.wunderground.com gives current conditions, and the page at www.worldweatheronline.com gives graphs over the year; neither of them gives the kind of time averaged information in the chart in the Wikipedia article. If I have missed something please let me know, but I tried looking to see whether the information was given on other pages on those web sites and failed to find it. The two #2 sources, es.climate-data.org and www.weather-atlas.com, do give the kind of information in the table in the Wikipedia article, and both of them agree with 24.8C (though weather-atlas gives it converted to Fahrenheit). Likewise the April mean temperature is given as 16.2 and September low as 18.4, agreeing with the figures in the Wikipedia article before TechnicianGB changed them. It may be that TechnicianGB's figures are contained somewhere in the other two sources, but I failed to find them. TechnicianGB, can you explain clearly where I can verify the figures you have quoted? By "clearly" I mean so that I can go directly to the correct page and see the figures, without having to do any searching. Also, some of the things you have said in edit summaries and elsewhere lead me to wonder if you may have combined data yourself, giving results which are not actually given in the source. If that is so then it is contrary to Wikipedia's policy on original research. A reader should be able to go to a cited source and verify the information in the Wikipedia article directly, not search through the sited source, think for a while, and eventually work out a process by which the information could perhaps have been derived from various other things which the source says. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I rv those changes and added it according to the data i've compiled by myself. Like I said before, what I've done there is a mix-up with the wunderground station. That data has to be achieved step by step and yes, it's not reacheable without a specific search on the website; it's not like the other 2 sources where averages are already stated month by month. Anyways, in many sources related to weather/climates they just offer the monthly data year by year, not the averages for a term of time.

I'll put tomorrow the averages of the 3rd source as I've seen that it's the one with the best information, and soon i'll add another source of AVAMET, which is the official Valencian meteorological agency, they have a station in Benidorm but 1st I will have to compile and do the total averages, as they offer averages for every month in each year and the averages of every year (in a term of time). I need a bit of time to do it so at first I will change it for the worldweatheronline source.

--TechnicianGB (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@TechnicianGB: You seem not to have grasped a point that I tried to make clear above. You must not "compile and do the total averages", because that is contrary to Wikipedia's policy on original research. The information posted to the article must actually be in the cited source: it is not good enough that someone who chooses to edit Wikipedia tells us that he or she has derived it from the cited source or sources. Also "it's not reachable without a specific search on the website" is not good. The reference you give should be a reference to the place where the information can be found, e.g. the actual web page where it can be found: it is not good enough to just give a link to another page on the web site and expect a reader of the Wikipedia article to then spend time trying to figure out where on that web site the page with the relevant information can be found. This is not just my opinion, it is a matter of Wikipedia policy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: what? I agreed exactly with your words and told you that I will change those numbers to one of the sources just for that... as a specific search must be done and you told me that it has to be seen simply/represented in the source without doing further research. Regards. --TechnicianGB (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@TechnicianGB: Sorry, I must have misunderstood you. I thought that "... but 1st I will have to compile and do the total averages, as they offer averages for every month in each year and the averages of every year (in a term of time). I need a bit of time to do it so at first I will change it for the worldweatheronline source" meant that you were going to temporarily post another source until you had worked out averages, and that you would post your own averages later, when you had worked them out. If you didn't mean that then what did you mean? I honestly can't think of any other way to read those words.

On a different note, please don't change the title of this talk page section. It is not about Benidorm and Gandia climates, it is about concerns with your editing, part of which was on those two articles. Also, for an editor to change the wording of content posted by another editor on a third editor's talk page is not usually considered good practice unless there are very strong reasons, such as grossly unacceptable personal attacks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It's me who made this new section and the user "Lommaren" instead of replying to my section (and where you also replied) he made another one with my name on it, here exactly: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JamesBWatson&diff=806896327&oldid=806886922 although ok... But I thought it would be more accurate with that title as this is regarding 2 pages, not regarding as you thought at 1st with that sockpuppet thing.

All of this started because the user "Lommaren" made an senseless accusation on me on Matthew's page when Matthew (the other Wiki admin) asked this user about something unrelated, he took profit to accuse me for vandalizing pages in his page because Matthew is a mod, so he probably thought that I will get automatically blocked from further edits just because he accused me on an admin's page. His accusation is something which it's still out of my range, why this guy accuses me for vandalizing is still out of my range as it's clear that I've never vandalized in my whole life just as you could check. He even said textually "this user vandalizes pages and he should be blocked for editing" just because I've put those sources from above. Anyways not a problem for me! I faced a couple of times other "vandalism" accusations by raged new or anonymous users who were sockpuppets and I outed them, but it's rare to see an old Wiki user (which I never met before editing in the Wiki) doing this against me. Makes me think a lot, because some anonymous IPs either changed or deleted the weather stats on Gandia and Benidorm pages, one of them not much time ago, and now this user wants to delete that data just after anonymous IPs did... strange at least.

Well, I said that 1st I will put the numbers of one of the actual sources (worldweatheronline), and then i'll do an elaborated average from the Valencian meteorology agency, which is the 2nd most valuable source for any place in the Valencian region (Benidorm is in the Valencia region) after AEMET, which is the official Spanish met agency.

Probably I did a bit of mess up when I explained first. For this 2nd thing, if anything measured by myself is not considered as original research then I can make a website or something doing those averages and referencing the source inside of the website, so I can use it as a reference here to show those exact numbers easily, just like you said. In this case it would be acceptable? Regards. --TechnicianGB (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

TechnicianGB No, creating a web site and posting your original research there would not somehow convert it from being your original research into a reliable source. Please just drop the idea of replacing sourced content of articles with content which you produce yourself. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: the thing in this case is that the content is already placed on a website with a higher authority than the other 2 sources, as at least offers factual data and from where their data comes from (Wunderground-Weather Underground shows where all of their stations are located) while the other 2 sources (i'm talking about Benidorm) are amateur lookalike websites where they don't claim from where they take their data. Worldweatheronline looks more serious.

I just wanted to resume that data in months, because you told me before that users checking the source must see the data already resumed without doing further research. But in this case i'm using Wikipedia as the resume. But anyways I just wanted to explain this, you told me that this is not acceptable so ok, I will use one of the sources where it's all resumed and that's all... I just wanted to put the source with a bigger authority but it's ok, you're right too and Wikipedia rules are clear.

I will do it right now (i'll use one of the sources which you mentioned above and which are already on the page). Anyways, have you noticed that I opened the new section on your page (where you replied me) and "Lommaren" instead of replying to that, he directly made this new section called TechnicianGB ?

--TechnicianGB (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I already did it. I changed the averages for the ones of WeatherAtlas, which is the most useful source from the ones which were there, as well as the most complete. No problem if it's in F (Fahrenheit), as Wikipedia converted them directly into ºC (luckily the chart is in both ºC and F, so you can see in the source that any temp is the same as in the source). I hope it's all clear now. Regards. --TechnicianGB (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• @TechnicianGB: Concerning the different sections which were created on this subject, I thought it would be better to have just one, so I joined them together. I kept the one out of the two titles which seemed better, as it did give some indication of what the section was about, unlike Hello? which could have been about anything. However, I have thought about it some more, and decided that it is best not to personalise the dispute, so I have changed the section heading to a neutral one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• @TechnicianGB and Lommaren: I have found myself being being rought into a dispute about sourcing, which is a topic I usually keep away from. As I have already said, I was originally only concerned with investigating a long-term block-evading vandal, and got here because I followed up a comment which seemed to suggest that TechnicianGB might be doing similar vandalism. It does not seem to me that TechnicianGB's editing is vandalism. There are problems, but vandalism does not appear to be one of them. I intend to step back from this, but before I do I will say a few things which may be helpful.
• It seems to me that the main problem is the fact that the two of you both wish to use reliable sources, but you see different aspects of the issue of what counts as a reliable source. TechnicianGB sees a problem with what he says are amateur web sites which don't indicate where their information comes from, while Lommaren sees a problem with citing data to web sites which don't actually contain the cited data. Both of those are genuine concerns, and each of you is perfectly right to raise those concerns. In my opinion this is an example of the fact that Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, while seeming a straightforward concept, is often difficult or even impossible to implement. Assuming that TechnicianGB is right about the "amateur" web sties (I don't know whether he is or not) then it makes sense for him to try to get data from a more reliable site. On the other hand it also makes sense for Lommaren to prefer a site where the information in the article actually appears, rather than one where it doesn't, and an amateur who posts data to Wikipedia and tells us that he or she has collated and processed data from a reliable source is not a much more reliable source than another amateur who posts data to another amateur web site.
• From what TechnicianGB says above he seems to have understood the point about combining data oneself from a reliable source, and to have agreed to do things differently. If that is so, then perhaps explaining to him what the problems were has been helpful. That may be the end of the matter, but if not I hope the two of you (and perhaps other editors) can discuss the issues in a cooperative way, and try to reach agreement. Unless someone can find another reliable source that really does give the kinds of averages needed, there may be no way of including the climate data while satisfying both the reliable sources guideline and the no original research policy, in which case it may be a matter of either agreeing to compromise or agreeing to take the data out altogether. I don't intend to take part in deciding these questions, but if it's of any interest to you my own view is that Wikipedia's guidelines and policies are often best treated as ideals to aim for, rather than as firm rules, because sometimes it is really not possible to follow them exactly except by having no content at all.
• If any part of what I have said is helpful to either or both of you, that's good. If not, well I apologise for not being more helpful. Either way, if the two of you do have any more contact with one another, I hope it can be handled in a cooperative way, and that any disagreements can be discussed and resolved in a way that you can both accept, even if not in way that you are both totally happy with. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I finally used this source [9] looks the best done from the ones which were before, and I deleted as well all of the other sources as this source practically shows everything: temperatures, rain, sun hours, daylight hours, sea temperature, etc. I live close to Benidorm and i'm very familiar with this climate, and I know that this climate data is not the most accurate because this place has warmer winters and significantly warmer summer low temperatures, but not a problem, it's already stated out by us and i'm ok as well with this source. Regards! --TechnicianGB (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Persistent cross-wiki article vandalism and sockpuppetry[10][11][12][13]. Same location and Internet Service Provider with a long-term abuser and exactly the same form of vandalism with his newish sock[14] that has been banned by @Berean Hunter:. Despite multiple editors reverted the ip [15], the ip only attacked WM with the sockmaster's jargon [16][17]. Personal attacks and accusing certain editors for COI are what the sockmaster did many times before. Seems WP:DUCK. Is it possible to range block those ips for some time? 188.19.201.115 (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have blocked a range covering the most recently used IP addresses for three months. However, there are also IP addresses that have been used in a rather wider IP range which a little further back in time includes some good edits, so that is more difficult. I have blocked that range for a short period, but I'm afraid it is likely to only put a small dent in the editor's activities, as he or she will probably turn up on another range. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

 

Hi JamesBWatson, I can't believe you reverted all the changes I just made without looking at all of the sources I posted about Bethel Robinson. If you say that the Bethell Robinson I pointed to was dead long before Bethell Robinson the footballer was active then maybe you just spotted his father (also named Bethell Robinson) - and if you look at all the sources I posted you will see that I have got the right man - in particular the 1901 census has him has Innkeeper for the Crown & Cushion as confirmed in http://lostpubsofbolton.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/crown-and-cushion-empress-spencers-bar.html. Please can you change it back. Cheers, foster.winkler —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Foster.winkler (talk • contribs) 11:27, 27 October 2017

@Foster.winkler:

1. I didn't say just that the Bethell Robinson in the source you linked to was dead before the footballer was active, I said he was dead before the footballer was born. I didn't make a note of the exact dates, but the gap was closer to 20 years than to 10, so it clearly wasn't the footballer's father.
2. The page you link to above is on blogspot, which is not a reliable source, as anyone can set up a blog and post more or less anything there. However, even if it were a reliable source, it gives the name as Bethel Robinson, so I am totally bewildered as to how you think linking that page supports your claim that the spelling was "Bethell".
3. My searches produced over 200 sources which spell the name as "Bethel", and not a single one which spells it "Bethell". Nor have you produced any verifiable source which gives it as "Bethell". However, even if you could show that the one source you have provided really does give that spelling, which is more likely, that that one source is the only one out of hundreds with the correct spelling, or that it is the only one with a spelling mistake?
4. Wikipedia policy is that when any content is removed or challenged the burden of proof lies with the editor who adds or restores material, who must not restore it without providing a verifiable reliable source. I see that you have now twice restored the content without providing a verifiable source that supports it. Please don't do so again. Also, please be aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring does not permit editors to keep on making the same, or substantially the same, edit repeatedly in the face of reversions by other editors. I shall also post a message about that, including a link to the policy, on your talk page, for future reference. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It appears that you are just trolling me - I'd love to see your 200 sources. All newspaper reports from that time, including the reference I've just cited on the page which connects him to the Crown & Cushion pub and being a noted footballer, refer to him as Bethell - as does the adverts he has placed in the papers at the time. Cheers, foster.winkler —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Foster.winkler (talk • contribs) 12:25, 27 October 2017‎

@Foster.winkler: I don't recommend accusing good-faith editors of "trolling", as it may lead other editors to have a lower level of trust in what you say.

If you would like to see the 200 or so sources then you can find them as easily as I did. However, here are a few:

https://playupliverpool.com/tag/bethel-robinson/

http://bluecorrespondent.co.uk/1888-89/may1889.html

http://www.albiontillwedie.co.uk/seasonarchive/results/1888-89/away/boltonwanderers.html

https://footballleagueplayers.wordpress.com/1888-1915/football-league-1888-89/

http://captainbeecher.webs.com/1890.htm

https://playupliverpool.com/1892/12/05/liverpoolfc-weekly-review-december-5-1892-liverpool-mercury/

https://www.southportfootballclub.co.uk/189293-season-summary/

http://www.worldebooklibrary.net/articles/1889%E2%80%9390_stoke_f.c._season

Then, of course, there is the one which 'you yourself provided: http://lostpubsofbolton.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/crown-and-cushion-empress-spencers-bar.html.

Every one of those spells the name "Bethel", and I have not seen a single source, nor have you provided a single reliable source, which spells it as Bethell. I also note that some of the sources I have listed contain content from newspapers from the time, contrary to your statement that "all" newspaper reports from that time spell the name "Bethell". Do not restore your claim to the article again without providing verifiable reliable sourcing. If you do so you are likely to be blocked from editing by a Wikipedia administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Foster.winkler:

• (talk page stalker) Can I just add that original records like birth, baptism, marriage and death records are largely not acceptable as sources on Wikipedia, as they are primary sources and it requires original research (which is forbidden) to decide if they're the correct ones. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I realise I'm new to editing Wikipedia and didn't understand the rules but I've got to say it's very aggravating when I'm trying to be helpful and someone just goes ping and undoes the work you've just done and then posts a reason that shows that they either haven't looked at the sources or have misread them. And if original research is not allowed then this is not the place for me. Just because something is printed in a newspaper or a book doesn't make it true. "foster.winkler"

Is "someone just goes ping" anything like "just" accusing someone of trolling? I hope you don't just leave, as your edit summary suggests, but I equally hope that if you do stay that you do so with a great deal more willingness to collaborate in a reasonable way. -- Begoon 15:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Re "Just because something is printed in a newspaper or a book doesn't make it true" is missing the point of an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be following behind the leading edge of knowledge and reflecting what is currently accepted by reliable sources - not leading our understanding by correcting what those sources say. So if the current consensus for something is actually wrong, then Wikipedia is supposed to be wrong too until the reliable source consensus changes - for one thing, we have no reliable way of telling if that consensus really is wrong, as we simply can not rely on the original research and claims of anonymous editors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Another interesting point is that it was Foster.winkler who first brought up being in a newspaper as justification for believing something is true, and only after I had pointed out that newspapers do not support his view did he switch to thinking "Just because something is printed in a newspaper or a book doesn't make it true". As time has gone on I have become more and more convinced that Foster.winkler was right when he suggested that there is trolling going on here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I think you have a point there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I need your help with a page which has been recently fully protected (only for admins) yet no one restored the heavy vandalism edits of an warned (and previously blocked) WIki user with few editions. I proposed it to change it 2 days ago but it seems that no one noticed it.

It's the page Catalonia. Let me expose my basis and the vandalism edits which haven't been arranged:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catalonia&diff=807369754&oldid=807369526
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catalonia&diff=807369877&oldid=807369754

Both editions deleted lots of the infobox with no reason or sense. The 1st user was even blocked a couple of weeks ago for his vandalism edits on similar pages, although his actual changes were not undone. Neither this 2nd edition from above, another one which just deleted lots of information without sense.

• I suggest for a new block for the user which did the disrupted edition: 2017NewYearNewMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and to return to the prior aspect of the page prior to this edition (this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catalonia&diff=807369526&oldid=807369389), just keeping the actual map, as prior to the editions of this user someone changed the map from the box. The actual one (which was in the article before the 27th of October) is the most accurate one. And as well a small change, in the "unilateral declaration of independence" line under "statue of authonomy" box, could you please put unrecognised and to use this source? (because it's unrecognised). This is the source: http://www.euronews.com/2017/10/27/catalonia-what-direct-rule-from-madrid-could-mean

Thanks in advance. --TechnicianGB (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:GOODFAITH. I'd see no reason for me to be blocked for making the initial edit. The disruption that followed afterwards isn't on my part since I'm even blocked from editing the page at the moment. 2017NewYearNewMe (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure? So deleting most of the infobox to put your own information there without reason or arriving to a consensus, an infobox which has been there for years ... that's not a reason? Oh dear... that infobox had lots of edits to include the recent events after 27th of October where others put their effort on it and yet you came and changed it to your own likings and deleting most of it. So that's not a reason? At least a reason for a big and last warning ... and a complete reversion of that change. I forgot to say that other people are also saying in the talk page of Catalonia Talk:Catalonia why the infobox got deleted and changed to this controversial, new one which is not accurate at all. --TechnicianGB (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@TechnicianGB and 2017NewYearNewMe: This looks to me like a disagreement over what content should be included in the article, rather than vandalism. I suggest that in the first instance the best approach is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, each of you explaining your reasons for holding the views that you do hold, and attempting to reach a version which you are both willing to accept. If that fails, you may wish to look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to see whether anything there seems like a useful way forward. Also, I suggest thinking carefully before accusing anyone of vandalism unless the editing is blatantly and obviously done with the intention of doing harm. If someone making changes that he or she honestly believes are helpful, no matter how unreasonable you may think that belief is, then accusing them of vandalism is likely to do nothing apart from antagonising them and making them less likely to think about what you have to say and to cooperate with you. Also, anyone involved in a dispute whose approach is seen as making accusations and demanding blocks rather than civilly discussing the issues is less likely to be received sympathetically if the case is later considered by anyone else. TechnicianGB, you know what it is like to be accused of vandalism when you believe you are being constructive. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Just curious why you feel that having an "unsigned" template that isn't substituted is important. Is it something that should be discussed in a wider venue, like WT:WPT? Primefac (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: Interesting that you should ask about this now, as I recently thought about it and wondered whether I really have a good reason. I took to a policy of not substituting Unsigned2 many years ago, certainly not later than 2010 and probably earlier. After that much time I don't clearly remember the reason, but I rather think it was something like the following. A new editor saw that I had posted a note saying something like Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaa blaa (talk • contribs) 13:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC) and got quite annoyed, as he or she saw this as me gratuitously taking it upon myself without authority to make up a message about not signing as a way of criticising him or her for not signing. In the light of what that editor said it seemed to me that he or she would have been less likely to have seen it that way if the edit had been visibly a standard template, rather than only seeing the substituted result, which looked as though I had made it up myself. That is a vague attempt to reconstruct what happened from distant memories many years later, and may be very inaccurate, but I think it was something like that. In December 2010 an editor decided without discussion and without giving any reason to add to the documentation for the template a message saying that it should always be substituted. That was certainly not uncontroversial, as another editor reverted the change, but the editor who put it there restored it. (That editor was later indef-blocked for persistent disruptive editing.) Several years later, in 2015, someone decided to enforce that unilateral decision by getting a bot to automatically substitute the template, again without any discussion or explanation as far as I can find. I think my decision to create an alternative unsubstituted version was perhaps motivated about 40% by a belief that there was an advantage in leaving it unsubstituted and 60% by a feeling of irritation that my freedom of choice was being taken away by editors acting unilaterally without giving any reasons for doing so. At present I am not really sure that there is enough advantage in having an unsubstituted version to be worth bothering about, but on the other hand I don't see any disadvantage either, and so far as I am aware nobody has ever given any reason anywhere why these templates should have to be substituted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the reply. I do not really have any strong opinions regarding auto-substitution (I can see it's benefits but have experienced its detractors) and given that you have a fairly good reason I am satisfied leaving things as they are. Primefac (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Send the bunch:) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

See[18] and [19].--Outlookxp (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Outlookxp: Thanks for pointing that out to me. As far as English Wikipedia is concerned, the two accounts do not overlap in time, and I don't see anything that could be regarded as abuse of multiple accounts, so I don't think a block for sockpuppetry would be justified. However, I have blocked "Noname new yorker" for three days for other reasons, and the knowledge that Sunlightman's edits were to be considered as part of Noname new yorker's editing history was relevant to my decision to make that block, so your information has been helpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• 64.150.0.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Sorry for dumping this on to you, but I've seen you perform a few school range blocks here and there, so would you mind evaluating the edits within this IP range and performing a long-term school range block? I know it's a very wide range, but there's been absolutely nothing but vandalism here for years and years... Thanks. 75.134.188.220 (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I have instead blocked the two smaller ranges 64.150.0.0/18 and 64.150.64.0/19 and the single IP address 64.150.112.18, which as far as I can see covers all the vandalism in the range you mentioned. However, please let me know if you can see any more that I have missed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey James. I was surprised, to say the least, to see your scathing response on Gabinho's talk page. It came across as though I had insulted you outright with my reply. I was shocked to see you dismiss my message as a "non-answer" that you were already anticipating. I genuinely tried to be as thorough as possible in explaining why I issued an edit warring block in that situation, and I invested a significant amount of time in trying to be as helpful and detailed as I could in responding to your inquiry. I even invested time in providing an in-depth explanation and analysis of the edit war itself, so that you could understand the nature and type of the edit war that was going on. I assumed that if you understood the context of the slow-moving edit war, you would better understand the block. Needless to say, I was despondent to see you reduce my good faith efforts to me merely providing a "general article history" as an empty substitute for a block justification. Look, I don't know about you or Boing, but one of my primary areas of involvement is AN3—I'm pretty familiar with the community expectations and norms regarding edit warring enforcement by now. My experience in this area is what led me to execute the block as I did. Firstly, what you interpreted as a "general article history" was an attempt to bring you up to speed on the the confusing underlying dispute. I'm sorry you interpreted this as a bad thing. However, I thought it was important context in recognizing the edit war. Secondly, I referred you to the entirety of the article's history. I expected that, once you understood the context of the dispute, the long-term, slow-motion edit would be extremely obvious to you. Instead, you made the shocking statement that "there had been no edit warring". I'm at a complete loss as to how you could come to that conclusion. This editor took part in an ongoing edit war. There's literally no denying that. The entirety of the article's history is marred by a singular edit war over a singular issue. Slow-motion edit warring is edit warring. Tag team edit warring is edit warring. Users who revert are expected to use the talk page (again, "I didn't look at the talk page" is not a valid excuse if you're reverting). Users partaking in an edit war can be blocked without violating 3RR. These are all things that you didn't address at all while criticizing my block. Now, look. I'm open to dissent, and if someone disagrees with a block for a user who only reverted once, I'm open to hearing that criticism. I would have explained that disproportionate edit warring blocks are highly frowned upon by the community, and this user was blocked alongside of the other two edit warriors in the interest of fairness, in accordance with community norms. You would be free to disagree, and I would be more than happy to bow to your dissenting perspective. However, that wasn't even your criticism. Your criticism was that there was no edit warring. That's simply not true. If you had actually read my reply, you would understand that there was an edit war going on, and this user was one of the three recent editors who were continuing it. That should not be a point of contention. Your reply gave the impression that you ignored what I said, and spun it as me trying to justify an empty block. I'd be happy to hear, specifically, why you feel there was no edit warring, because I could not agree less with that. However, I'm sure you have valid points that will only help me improve. Swarm ♠ 05:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
CC: @Boing! said Zebedee: Swarm ♠ 05:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Swarm, I have to say I'm even more perplexed (and disappointed) by your response now than I was yesterday (shocked, in fact, that someone with your experience can get this so badly wrong and so completely misunderstand what people are saying to you). JamesBWatson clearly did not say there was no edit warring! Where on earth did you get that from? What he said was simply, and clearly, that Gabinho did not edit war. That's a very big difference, and I really can't understand how you can not see that. And again, the entire edit-warring history of the article is utterly irrelevant when it comes to judging whether Gabinho was edit warring. You still have not explained how this individial editor was warring - and you can not, because he was not. We simply do not block an editor because some other folk have been edit warring for ages - you were right to block those other two, because they had been edit warring, but Gabinho clearly was not. Secondly, your insistence that a warning on an article talk page is a sufficient warning before blocking someone is, well, so far away from Wikipedia's blocking policy and blocking norms that I'm amazed that you can come up with such an absurd claim. Even in such serious cases where discrectionary sanctions are in force, a sanction can not be placed on an editor unless they have previously been informed of those sanctions on their user talk page. There are two simple facts here, which you seem blind to:

1. Gabinho was not edit warring.
2. Gabinho had not been warned.

I think it's fair to say that JamesBWatson and I are among the most experienced of admins here (both with plenty of experience in reviewing unblock requests and in understanding edit warring and blocking policy), and when we are both telling you that you are wrong, don't you think you should at least listen to what we are saying and consider if perhaps we might be right? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Just an additional comment. Do you know what I expected, Swarm, after JamesBWatson's question to you at Gabinho's talk page? I was honestly expecting something along the lines of "Ah yes, I blocked three of them but it seems only two of those were edit warring, so I'll unblock this one." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Swarm: Like Boing! said Zebedee, I am perplexed by seeing such a message from an experienced administrator whom I have always thought of as a good administrator, totally missing various points and seriously misrepresenting others. Three times in your message above you claimed that I said that there had been no edit warring, and yet I never said that, I said only that there was no edit warring from this editor. Edit-warring is repeatedly reverting in the same page, it is not making a couple of edits on an article where other people have been repeatedly reverting in the same page. Gabinho had not been repeatedly reverting in the same page, that is to say Gabinho had not been edit warring. That is the central point of all this. Several other things you say are astonishing, but rather than dwell on every detail I shall just mention one of them. You said "This editor took part in an ongoing edit war. There's literally no denying that." How can you say that when two experienced administrators have denied it? Boing! said Zebedee has denied it again in his message above, and I shall deny it again: whatever anyone else may have done, Gabinho was not edit warring. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• @JamesBWatson and Boing! said Zebedee: Apologies for the delayed reply, I was out of town. To be clear, when I say, "there was no edit warring", I'm just referring to the fact that you both believe that Gabinho did not edit war at all. I understand you can see the edit war, so let's not get caught up on that. I'm just trying to address the point of contention in good faith, because you think I'm being wholly unreasonable. I hear what you're saying, that Gabinho did not edit war. I get that. I disagree. And please don't take this an attempt to lecture down to you guys. I'm not trying to be confrontational or condescending. First and foremost I just want you to understand my position on the applicability of edit warring policy here, because I've given you the impression that I've issued an arbitrary block. I disagree with the stance that you need to revert more than once in order to edit war, and that the context of this single revert is irrelevant. 3RR doesn't always apply, and when that's the case we're expected to look into and familiarize ourselves with the context of edit wars, rather than just tally up reverts. Obviously, a single revert is not normally a problem. However, it can be a problem if you're directly involving yourself a massive, ongoing, tag team edit war. If the article history directly demonstrates that a single revert was part of an ongoing tag team edit war, then we should not just ignore that context. Taking part in a tag team edit war, even with a single revert, is still edit warring, and, when necessary, the community expects us to treat tag team edit warring the same as an outright 3RR vio. Now, while I disagree with you not connecting this user's revert to the ongoing tag team edit war, this particular instance was relatively minor, that I will concede. My intention was simply to not issue unbalanced remedies, as I have been equally burned for doing just that! Perhaps in my efforts to avoid repeating that, I swung too far to the other side and fell short of considering the mitigating factors (i.e. one revert, no warning, no previous involvement), and I can agree that that is no better. I've received important perspective from this and apply it in the future, for sure. I will try to strive for fair enforcement, rather than equal enforcement. I'm sure we all agree that knowing when not to block is just as important as knowing when to block. Swarm ♠ 22:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

Analysis sent! Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Godric on Leave: Wow! That was quick! thanks very much. I'll think about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Good Day James.

I just noticed that the edits I made to the aforesaid article has been vandalised. I am afraid to say that this is a repeated pattern on this page. I had inserted a section titled "Controversy" and I had provided newspaper clippings to support this section (Bengali newspaper clippings, published from Kolkata, India). This entire section has been blanked by a group of users who do not want these newspaper clippings to be published. If you search the earlier history on this article, you will notice that in the past similar attempts were made from fake IDs. One user Rahulkarmakar has put a note that says, "We are already in the process of legal action against this individual fraud members. Request you to allow us to modify the same in Wikipedia also. We have exposed this fraudulent activity in our website as mentioned below. http://www.srai.org/conspiracy/". I believe they maybe hinting towards myself by saying "this individual fraud members" and this is an absolutely false claim. The webpage link he has provided belongs to his organization of which the subject of the Wikipedia article, Prabir Ghosh, is an authority. I understand that the group is trying to protect their boss from a scandal. But I am just a non-aligned individual who feel that the biography of the person must reflect truth and not some hagiography. Neither do I have to do anything with SRAI nor am I their enemy. As a matter of fact, I do not even know these people and I just wanted to reflect the incidents that were widely published in local newspapers of that time. Furthermore, the link he provided points to an article that discusses certain legalities regarding using their trademark/logo etc. and not at all related to the controversy regarding Mr Ghosh's personal life that I had drafted. In your edit, you have mentioned, "Removing disputed content without a verifiable source. DO NOT restore this content without providing a reliable source: doing so would be a violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, and may lead to being blocked from editing." But the newspaper clippings I provided, WERE the verifiable sources. It included headlines from at least three local Bengali dailies. I do not know what other verifiable sources one may provide. URLs are not possible as it happened almost two decades ago and we did not have the technology back then. I can forward you the original scans of those same newspaper clippings if you want. If you still feel the evidence is not enough then I may try to connect with the SRAI organization and get some sort of affidavit from them saying what I had written is truth, but this will be hard to do as I do not have any personal connection there. Please let me know what you think. Ideally, I would like to revert this article to the version I made last, i.e. 06:51, 18 September 2017‎.

@2kaibiswas: My general feeling is that you are probably telling the truth, but verification of the sources is a problem. I am not sure what would be the best way to deal with this problem. Emailing me copies of the newspaper articles would be no use, as I can't read Bengali. Perhaps it may be possible to find an independent editor who does read Bengali to translate it. I could ask an editor I know of who has much more knowledge of matters related to editing Indian articles than I have for suggestions, but I don't have any more time now. I will try to come back to this tomorrow, but if I don't get back to you within 48 hours from now I suggest you contact me again to remind me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@2kaibiswas: I have asked for help from another editor with more experience in this area. He may or may not be able to help. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@2kaibiswas: Will you email me scans of the newspaper reports? I have now contacted two editors who speak Bengali, and if you can let me have copies of the reports I can ask one or both of them to check what they say, and if they confirm that the newspaper does support the disputed content of the article then I will be happy to restore that content to the article. I ask you to use email rather than posting the scans to Wikipedia, as posting copies of newspapers to a publicly accessible web site would raise copyright concerns. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I have sent you an email. "2kaibiswas" (talk)

@2kaibiswas: A Bengali speaking editor has now looked at the newspaper cuttings, and confirmed that they do support the claim that Prabir Ghosh was removed by Bharatiya Bigyan O Yuktibadi Samiti from the post of general secretary. Feel free to restore the content to the article if you wish to. On the other hand, the hand-written note that you also sent cannot possibly be regarded as a reliable source, so that cannot be taken into account. It has been questioned whether Prabir Ghosh is notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, so it is possible that it may be nominated for possible deletion at WP:AFD. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thanks James. I have restored it to the version prior to latest vandalism."2kaibiswas" (talk)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Category:Lorde. Thanks. Nihlus 16:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Funnily enough I was just reading that when i got notification of your message here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain why you are being exceptionally difficult in this matter? The deletion discussion was four years ago and commented on by only two editors. You have multiple people now, including one of the people who participated in that discussion, asking someone to unprotect the page so that it can be recreated. Unprotection has nothing to do with the deletion process, and even if it did, G4 states "It excludes pages... to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". That is most certainly the case in this situation. I also strongly disagree that you or the deleting administrator should place a moratorium of sorts on the protection of the article, one that should not have been indefinitely protected to begin with. Nihlus 17:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that anyone should place a "moratorium" on the protection. I just said that I personally wasn't going to unprotect the article under present circumstances. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello James. This ip [20] is making questionable edits across multiple articles (source falsifications, pointlessly removal of sourced content from the lede and replacement them with unsourced OR contents, false/misleading edit summaries,etc.) The ip range 95.116* together with 82.113* and 89.204* is quite specific to a long-term abuser. Previous edits by old ip socks mentioned on LTA page [21][22][23]. Same ip range and location, same topics and same disrupt signs. It looks like WP:DUCK. Can temporary range-block be appropriate to avoid further disruption and sockpuppetry by the long-term abuser? Accounts using the same range with suspicious edits should also be locked. FYR @BU Rob13 and Berean Hunter: -46.147.54.204 (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately only a small minority of edits from the 95.116... range are from this disruptive editor, with far more edits which seem to be totally unrelated, such as fairly recent edits to Spoke–hub distribution paradigm, Brotli, List of Melrose Place characters, Bread roll, IEEE 802.3, and many more. This means that a range block would be unacceptable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, JamesB. I've noticed a bunch of IPs following each other around certain articles and making the same disruptive edits. See histories regarding Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song), Malibu (Miley Cyrus song), Adore You, We Can't Stop, etc. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Some IP addresses were already blocked when I saw this, and some of the affected articles were already protected. I have added some more blocks and protections. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Now the most active one (193.144.97.48) has requested to be unblocked, claiming to be a high school. Nothing about any school in their IP WHOIS or official site, though. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: https://tools.wmflabs.org/whois/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=193.144.97.48 gives the IP address as belonging to "Xunta de Galicia Conexion Centros Escolares", which Google translate renders as "Xunta de Galicia School Centers Connection". whatismyipaddress.com gives it as "Entidad Publica Empresarial Red.es", i.e. "Corporate Public Entity", which is much vaguer, but certainly consistent with its being a school IP address. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you meant to ping Skywatcher68. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Yes I did, and I realised my mistake, but as I was trying to correct it you edit-conflicted me with the above message. Oh well... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Knson. This new user is continuing to make very disruptive edits with no edit summaries or discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: The editor had already been blocked by the time I saw your message, so I didn't bother to reply to it. However, having now pinged you by mistake I thought I might as well answer you. This is a very strange editor, who combines perfectly constructive editing with dubious edits and also occasionally with obvious vandalism. Since his or her editing is largely in a rather specialist area that I know little about, it is very difficult to distinguish between constructive and unconstructive editing. If you see any more of the same kind of thing after the present block expires, please feel welcome to contact me again. A longer-term block might be justified, but unfortunately the person also has an extensive history of editing from IP addresses spanning a range which also includes edits that don't seem to be from the same person, so it may be difficult to prevent further disruptive editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Some of this person's edits would indeed probably be ok if they were willing to engage in discussion. It's the continual editing with no edit summary and no response to comments on their talk page that causes many (but not all) of the problems. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Yes, I agree. I have posted a message to the editor's talk page asking him or her to start communicating. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

i accidently did this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardon146 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mardon146: OK, we all make mistakes. Obviously, be careful! The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

before you blcoked ip please know that it will impact on other users and their edting compability i was currently logged out my account when i was try to edit it says your ip has been blocked for editing can you explain why you blocked these ip — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardon146 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mardon146:

1. No, I can't tell you why I blocked the IP addresses in question, as you haven't told me what IP addresses you are referring to.
2. I never block IP addresses or ranges without first checking all the editing history of those addresses or ranges over a period of time longer than the time over which I am blocking, to make sure that any risk of collateral damage is small compared to the likely damage if the block is not enacted.
3. Don't edit without logging in. That will totally avoid the problem you mention. It will also avoid other editors getting the impression that you are trying to be deceptive by switching between your account and anonymous editing, which could lead to both your account and the IP address you use being blocked for a very long time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Quack quack. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: yes, and some other IP addresses too. Various IP blocks are in place, but since the person in question has been jumping to IP addresses in quite different ranges, article protection is likely to be more effective. A couple of the affected articles had been protected, but for periods which were short compared to the time over which the vandal has been operating, and also he or she has always returned when previous short-term protections expired, so I have protected al the affected articles for a month. I hope that will be enough, but if not then longer protection may be necessary. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I see you caught their use of Seattle-area library computers to evade blocks. And they accuse others of having no life! –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comment. I created Services Transactions on Internet of Things and other entries because when doing research, I found that they are all related to a growing discipline — Services Computing. I decided to create a series of entries to let people have a clearer understanding. So I don't mean to have a conflict of interest (COI). I will correct all the misleading words.

I still have some questions. How can I make my articles satisfy the notability guidelines? Some say that the importance of articles should be showed in summary or reference (I don't remember the exact words), but I can't find the right place. After I modify the articles and add more references, can I resubmit the entry? I can't find any instruction.

Waiting for your answerSissicxi (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sissicxi:

• The first point is that asking "How can I make my articles satisfy the notability guidelines" is the wrong question. It is a matter of whether the thing written about in the article is notable, not whether the article is notable. No amount of rewriting or editing an article can change the notability of the subject it is written about, so if a subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines then any article on the subject is likely to be deleted, no matter how it may be written.
• My own searches have convinced me that the subjects of the articles you created do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so my personal advice is that you would be better advised not to put more time into a task which is doomed from the start. However, if despite that advice you prefer to go ahead with further attempts at creating the articles, then I offer the following information, which may help you.
• What kind of thing is required for notability is described in the notability guidelines. You should also look at the guideline on reliable sources. How to cite sources is explained at Wikipedia:Citing sources, but in my opinion that page is far too detailed and complex for anyone new to editing. Help:Referencing for beginners is somewhat more accessible, but still, in my opinion, longer and more complex than it should be.
• Yes, you can resubmit rewritten versions. If you do so I strongly recommend submitting them as drafts, rather than directly as articles. A draft can be reviewed by an experienced editor, who will either accept it as an article or else give reasons for not accepting it, which will give you some idea what kinds of changes are needed. The biggest advantage of creating a draft is that drafts which are considered unsuitable as articles are normally left to be improved, rather than deleted immediately. (I say "normally", because a draft may be deleted without warning in some circumstances, such as if it is found to infringe copyright, but it is not usually deleted for reasons such as not giving enough evidence of notability.)
• If you do wish to create a draft and submit it for review, start by creating a page with a title beginning Draft: such as Draft:Services Transactions on Big Data. At the top of that page post {{subst:AFC draft}}, and write the content of your proposed article below it. A notice will appear at the top of the page, stating that it is a "draft article not currently submitted for review", and there will be a button at the bottom for you to click to submit the draft for review when you think it is ready.
• Finally, two warnings about limitations of the draft review process. Firstly, how long you will have to wait for a review is very variable: if you are very lucky you may get a review on the day when you submit it, but there is a huge backlog of unreviewed submissions, so it is more likely to take much longer, quite possibly several weeks. Secondly, new editors are often disappointed at the amount of information they get back from the review process, which often tells them briefly of some thing that needs correcting (such as that the article is written in a promotional way, that its references don't show notability, or whatever) but does not explain exactly what aspects of it need to be changed. Unfortunately, in view of the heavy backlog of unreviewed submissions, reviewers cannot spend a lot of time giving detailed advice on each one, as that would mean that many submissions would never get reviewed at all. While not ideal, the feedback given on a rejected draft should at least indicate what aspect of needs attention. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, JamesB. I've read the notability guidelines and it's said that "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article". So I think you mean that the created subject is not notable. You said "my own searches have convinced..."， it seems a little bit personal and subjective to me and I can't help guessing some editors may not think so. So I wonder how such subjective opinion could be avoid. Waiting for your answerSissicxi (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sissicxi: I searched for information about the journals you wrote about. I found nothing that comes anywhere near to being the kind of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources that is required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and no article which relied on the sources that I have seen would stand a realistic chance of surviving a deletion discussion. The likelihood that there are suitable independent sources giving the required kind of coverage but none of them are available from online searches is sufficiently remote that I used the word "convinced". Because of the lack of notability by Wikipedia's standards putting further work into trying to get articles about those journals accepted is very likely to be a waste of your time and effort. In order to help you avoid such waste of time I gave you my advice not to continue. However, experience over the years has shown me that many editors in your situation do not take that advice, so to help you I also gave you advice on a plan B if you choose not to take my advice not to continue. If you do choose to take that second choice then you will have your sources assessed independently by another editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, JamesB. I do appreciate your help and I'll submit the draft for review. Sissicxi (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Ducks in a row. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_songs_recorded_by_Miley_Cyrus&action=history –Skywatcher68 (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

To whom this concerns. I've just received a notification for changing a webpage that I've not changed at all. It's a threat from over 5 years ago. The guy goes by the name of Jacob. My name is Jeremy oddly enough and I live in Australia. The IP address must randomly change at times or are possibly shared? Do I need to change my IP address, so it's not causing any troubles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.233.201 (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I shall reply at User talk:124.187.233.201. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Might want to block them from editing their talk pages as well. They keep trying to add Lorem ipsum nonsense and attribute it to other editors. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Already done by another administrator by the time I got here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, JamesB. This one has been spreading cartoon-related hoaxes: 2600:1007:b12e:c2b7:20d3:ece7:4718:5329, 2600:6c48:7c00:3fe:4cd2:33a3:8531:b2ba, 2600:1007:b02c:c093:88cc:e2e4:73dd:6eed, 2600:1007:b02c:c093:2164:a30b:aa6f:4c0a, etc. That second one is already part of a range block. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP addresses in the 2600:1007:... group that you mention are spread over a very wide range, and there are many edits there which don't look as though they are connected to this person. However, the ratio of vandalism & other unconstuctive edits to constructive edits is very large, so I have blocked the range for a few months. Unfortunately there will be collateral damage, but that will be small in proportion to the amount of damage that it will prevent. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

My account was blocked in June 2016. Its been 1.5 years now. My wikipedia userid is my REAL NAME. I am a respected Orthopedic Surgeon in Mumbai, India (Orthopaedium.org). This is not a fake ID game for me. This block casts negative aspersions on my life & career. By blocking me you protected a devil who harbours criminals in hospital wards. Congratulations. I have no objection to that. But remove the block. I got punished. Its enough now. If you fear God, you will. I won't edit Wikipedia anymore. User: Niranjandeshmukh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.177.168 (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't "fear god", and even if I did I have no idea why that would cause me to lift the block. In any case, even if I thought unblocking you would be justified (which I don't) I couldn't unblock you, as it is a CheckUser block and can be lifted only by a CheckUser. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Beemer69, Home Lander, Skywatcher68, JayB91, Sweetpool50, Tiwahi, Pkonar, and Sissicxi: You have all posted to this talk page, pinged me, or mentioned me elsewhere resulting in a notification to me during the last week, when for personal reasons I have had very little opportunity to do anything in Wikipedia. I apologise for the fact that I have not responded to messages. I will try to deal with them all fairly soon, but I am still likely to be editing at a much lower rate than usual for a while, so it may take some time for me to get round to all of you. Also apologies to anyone I have accidentally left off the above list. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. My question on the talk page isn't terribly urgent to begin with. :) sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Likewise. Thought you might be away for Thanksgiving. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey James, it looks like it was just me linking to your userpage regarding this sockmaster who was trying to impersonate you. No apologies needed; after all, nothing here is WP:REQUIRED. Home Lander (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see edits made by User talk:2kaibiswas. This user did some wrong edits on Prabir Ghosh. He has given some unbiased data.I have actual documents on Prabir Ghosh .so request to you unlock Prabir Ghosh page and give opportunity to me upload this documents. Pkonar (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

'Prabir Ghosh' page documents that is unbiased. So unlocked it .and give chance to opportunity edit this page. Thanks Pkonar (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see edits made by User talk:Debasis Bhattacharya. This new user is continuing to make disruptive edits on Prabir Ghosh. He has deleted the verified sections and brought back the hagiography. I suspect this a fake user ID and maybe the same person is using different IDs - User talk:Pinakpani, User talk:Rahulkarmakar. 2kaibiswas (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@2kaibiswas: I agree. I also discovered another account, Anabil83, which has been blocked since March 2015 for similar promotion of the same person. I have indefinitely blocked both the new account you mentioned here and the previous account, and semi-protected the article. If any more accounts appear and start the same kind of thing I will be willing to block them immediately, without any further warnings, as they will be evading existing blocks. That applies whether they are run by the same person or by different working together. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Greetings JamesBWatson. There seems to be a mistake on this page. His birthday has been mentioned as March 1, 1945 in the main article, while it has been mentioned as March 1, 1946 below his photo. Definitely there is a mismatch, and based on his blog http://www.srai.org/prabir-ghosh/ I am of the opinion that it may be updated to 1945. Since it is a protected page now, I request you or an admin to make the correction if you think its legit. Best Regards. 2kaibiswas (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I need your help. I want to create Colors TV article regarding a notable popular channel in India with referenced data. The problem is that some user who previously created the page was a vandal and used numerous Wikipedia:Sock puppetry which resulted in the remade pages being deleted or redirected and permanently locked from locked from creation -> Colors TV, Colors (TV channel), Colors (Viacom18). The page was deleted without much consensus during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colors Kannada discussion of non-notable sister channel. The channel is notable with a huge stack of programs List of programs broadcast by Colors. So help me in creating the article and reassure me that I wont get in any trouble for it. Thanks JayB91 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@JayB91: I assume that by "without much consensus" you mean consensus without much participation, as there was 100% consensus among those who took part in the discussion. You can create a draft on the topic if you like. However, in order to justify overturning the decision at the deletion discussion you will need to provide sources that indicate that there is justification for giving the subject a separate article, as opposed to inclusion in the network article, contrary to what the participants in that discussion thought. If you think you have done that I will be willing to have a quick look at it and give you an opinion on it, but it will be only a rough opinion based on a fairly quick check, as I am not willing to put in the kind of detailed study needed to come to a definite conclusion. You may also like to consult the editors who took part in the discussion, to see whether they think you have adequately addressed their concerns. You could also try asking the administrator who closed the deletion discussion for an opinion, but as it was a long time ago he will very likely have little or no opinion on the matter. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you please explain why is this statement wrong?, as far as history goes Albanian as a family came at least a Millenia after Armenian (which is one of the latest Indo-Europeanized populations), I will be very interested in any Albanian literature/text or evidence prior to the 13th century AD. Tiwahi (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tiwahi: What have literature and text have to do with it? Assuming that you read my edit summary, you will have seen that I explicitly acknowledged that Albanian was the last to appear in written records, but it is a giant step to go from there to its being the "youngest" branch, which pretty well anyone reading the article would interpret as meaning the last to come into existence. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

If you don't accept Albanian as the youngest branch family of Indo-European, I am curious which family do you think is the latest? (so I understand why you opposed the edits), is there a possibility Albanian existed prior to Armenian? (possibly 2nd youngest Indo-European family), there seems to be nothing pointing to an Albanian Indo-European language even as recent as Roman times (correct me if I am wrong?) Tiwahi (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the branch of Indo-european that includes Albanian had not yet become segregated from common Indo-european in Roman times? We are not talking about the existence of a language called "Albanian", we are talking about the existence of a branch of the Indo-european language family separate from other branches, which today includes the language called "Albanian". That branch certainly existed by Roman times, although lack of evidence makes it impossible to be certain whether any languages from that time of which we have knowledge was a member of the same branch. You seem to be unable to distinguish the statement that a language was not recorded until a late date from the statement that the language family which includes that language did not exist until a late date. There is no doubt whatever that Common Indo-European had ceased to exist long before Sanskrit and Greek are first recorded, let alone Albanian; it had divided into a number of subfamilies, one of which contained the ancestor of Albanian. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no branch of Indo-European that included Albanian, hence its an isolated Indo-European family. This is the general opinion, now where do Albanian starts appearing as a language, 13th century AD. I am obviously by this linguistic tree (mainstream?) [[24]]. Tiwahi (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tiwahi: Are you trolling, or just obtuse? This discussion relates to an incident which stared by you saying that Albanian "is the youngest independent branch of the Indo-European language family". In the post which started this discussion on this page you referred to "Albanian as a family". In your second post here you referred to "Albanian as the youngest branch family of Indo-European". You can't now wriggle out of the nonsense that you have written by denying that Albanian is contained in a branch of Indo-European. It may be a branch which has only ever included one language, or it may have once included other languages which are now extinct (Illyrian, for example, is suggested as a possibility) but it certainly exists, and denying that it does is complete nonsense. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Seriously I am not sure if we are on the same page, Albanian is the youngest Indo-European family that only constitutes of one language with no historic record prior to the 13th century AD. This is the mainstream linguistic opinion, I apologize if I offended you in anyway, but you can please explain why you are opposed to this? (If you know something else, educate me -seriously-) Tiwahi (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tiwahi: I will make just one more attempt to explain the following point to you. Nobody disputes the fact that Albanian is the last branch of Indo-European to appear in the written record. For some bizarre reason you seem to think that from that fact it follows that Albanian must have been the last branch of Indo-European to come into existence, but it doesn't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize again if I unintentionally offended you in anyway, I am simply asking you for my own information (in response to your definitive "you seem to think that from that fact it follows that Albanian must have been the last branch of Indo-European to come into existence, but it doesn't"), I am curious what branch of Indo-European do you think is the last to branch out? Thanks in advance for taking your time to respond Tiwahi (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm still in process of unpacking books after a move, so I can't cite chapter and verse. However, there are a variety of pidgins based on European languages (Papaimento in Surinam, for instance, which has a literature) that probably count as more recent IE branches than Albanian. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Moving is never as smooth as we want it, good luck with that, in many cases pidgins are technically young Indo-European languages lacking political power or racial acceptance by the main body. However, in my edit I meant Albanian is the youngest language branch of the attested Indo-European families, anyways I no longer intend to revert that edit as it seems to have offended you & I actually understand what you mean by youngest language, scholars tend to impose rules about what makes a language, when in reality there is no clear line defining language, lots of attested languages are actually a pidgin with an army, no pun intended. Rewording the Albanian language edits are your responsibility, my input is within this reply Tiwahi (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tiwahi: I have no idea why you think you have "offended" me. Really, if I were so sensitive that I were capable of being offended by people on Wikipedia saying things that I thought were wrong then I would probably have given up editing years ago. However, I am concerned about you apparent inability to understand logic, because it encourages me to wonder if other edits, on articles about subjects that I know less about, may contain equally inaccurate or misleading statements. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

We can see things a bit differently without having to be worried about each others IQ score. My edit was straight-forward based of Albanian being the youngest attested Indo-European language Branch, you disagreed, and you could be right (just cause Albanians didn't leave iron-age texts doesn't mean there was no Albanian IE language then).

I really appreciate what you do -sincerely- most Wikipedia avid users represents a segment of humanity that is generous enough works for free, I am sorry that I was unable to replicate the same level of understanding you have of this subject, minds work in a weird way, but I think we are very close? You might be more certain about how archaic Albanian while I am not certain & only go by attested text. Regarding my other edits, you can help me with any edit I make, It will only improve the overall quality of any article Tiwahi (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey boss, going through my recent contributions what do you think. You were the one who gave me a second chance here Mahveotm (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I noted in the archive you have dealt with Blastikus before, I have just filed a new report [25] 117.20.41.10 (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This user has engaged in nothing but vandalism over several years without ever being blocked. Is it time to check it and the associated range and put a stop to their nuisance? Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: I've blocked a fairly large range including that IP address. Almost all of the edits form the range have been vandalism. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with the last vandals. Here's another from Dubai with a fairly consistent record. Are others in that range such pests? Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello James. I want to bring a long-term problem to your attention about a disruptive user.  I attempted to report him previosly but due to some technical problems, it delayed. I noticed the disruptive editor on a couple of articles with POV edits and misleading edit summaries. He censored a sourced content here[26] with a misleading edit summary and then edit-warred to keep it[27][28][29]. The same user removed a related link from the see also section here[30] with again, a misleading edit summary.  Moreover, due to his uniliteral move warrings, an article has been semi-protected here[31]. See the related discussion[32]. After checking his other edits on different articles, i realised that the disruption is long-term and not limited a few articles. See[33][34][35]. The user engages in Wikipedia:Sneaky vandalism by removing/changing relevant links, navbox, templates from the articles and tries to hide it with false/misleading edit summaries and edit-warring to keep them. See for example here[36][37][38][39], he removed related template every single time and his edit summaries were “added categories, fixed pictures”, “improved content and layout”, etc. And currently, he falsified a sourced content here[40] and then added a source which has nothing to do with the content he added[41]. Here is the cited source[42]. You can check it by yourself. The editor misrepresented the sourced content and then edit-warred to keep it, as he did on many articles before. See the related thread[43]

Those are his actions within the last 1,5 months. Since he has been active on wikipedia for years and edited so many articles, I couldn’t check all his edits-I do not know how many articles were disrupted or will be disrupted by this user. But it seems that there is no difference between his earliest and current editing patterns (tendentious editings, mass deletions of the sourced contents, edit-warrings, etc.) and his block log suggests that, temporary blocks do not work.  Therefore, in order to prevent Wikipedia articles from further disruptions and not to waste the community’s time with the same problems again and again, i suggest/request an indefinite block per persistent WP:NOTHERE. So many editors have been indeffed per the same policy and i do not see any reason to favor him. Best regards, 31.209.109.149 (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

---

There is a barely encyclopaedic article under the first title, so I wrote a new version under the second and then discovered that this subsequently blocked the move/direct request. Silly of me, but I'm not technically minded enough to know how to sort that now. What I did do was put a proposal on the Talk page of "The Fox and the Crab" which has not attracted any discussion. Could you please do the redirect, and also let me know what I should have done. I suspect it should have been rewrite the original and then requested the redirect. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a Turkish IP user who even goes as far as switching to a German VPN to remove the adequately verified and sourced weatherbox for Göle in Eastern Turkey. This is the log history and it is not pretty:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%B6le&action=history

Help would be very much appreciated since vandalism is very much out of order on this website and it takes a lot of effort to clean up when this happens! Best wishes: Lommaren (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lommaren: I have blocked the IP addresses for a month, and protected the article for a week. It is very likely that won't be enough, but I prefer to try a short protection first, to minimise risk of collateral damage. If the editor returns on another IP address I will be willing to protect the article for longer. ¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBWatson (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

re-ping due to mistype. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thank you very much, I will be back in due course if the poster returns under another IP to report the person, but at least it should be fine for a week now.

Lommaren (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello,please see edits made by user:2kaibiswas .This user is doing vandalism on Prabir Ghosh . He has deleted the verified links and news paper cutting in controversy section . Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkonar (talk • contribs) 06:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Pkonar, the reference you are adding, pointing to http://www.srai.org is a self-referencing material, pointing to Mr Ghosh's own blog site. It does not qualify as valid source. Further, the newspaper clipping added is a public notice advertised by Mr Ghosh. It is deemed as promotional material.

Hi JamesBWatson, please take note of the changes made by Pkonar. He added these back after my deletion. Leaving it upto you to resolve.

Thanks. 2kaibiswas (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi 2kaibiswas, reference that I given it is newspaper source and used website link .I think solve your doubt.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkonar (talk • contribs) 19:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed that the Virtua Fighter 5 page is being vandalized by different IP addresses

• 2605:e000:2e54:800:5ca2:d188:52ac:b45e
• 24.24.216.163
• 107.77.228.232
• 2605:e000:2e54:8f0:f021:d7fd:c273:f305

They or he/she are stating that it's the "final"[44] game, as if VF5 is the last game, but there's been no official word on that.[45] Æ-202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Æ-202: I've semi-protected the article for a month. nfortunately that may not be enough, because similar editing has taken place on the article PaRappa the Rapper 2, over a period of at least 8 months, as you can see here: [46] & [47]. The 2605:e000:... IP addresses are spread over a huge IP range, which contains numerous edits that don't appear to be the same person, so a range block is out of the question. The best we can do is semi-protect the articles, and be prepared to do so again for a longer period if the problem continues, but I would prefer not to protect for longer than this if possible, as there have also been constructive edits to the article by IP editors. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You deleted Harry Beckham a few years back as a hoax. Just a heads up that there are fresh attempts to at least get his name into articles. Someone has gone to great length to create a perpetuating myth if you check for "sources". Agathoclea (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Agathoclea: Yes. Clearly the same person adding fictitious information to articles since November, and sufficiently similar editing from an IP range to make it appear that the same person may have been active since as least as far back as January, so I have blocked the range for a year. Since there has not been a single non-vandalism edit from the range since April 2014 I think the risk of collateral damage is negligible. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, JamesB. Got another hopper evading a block: 2a02:c7d:268c:4e00:a88e:a120:ba23:b5f7 for 2a02:c7d:268c:4e00:5820:ccbf:3f6d:4752 and has also used 2a02:c7d:268c:4e00:f0b6:8118:4e3c:ae95, 2a02:c7d:268c:4e00:e82c:c205:1046:ef6e, 2a02:c7d:268c:4e00:91f0:9983:476a:4c98, etc. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: The same editor has also used other IP addresses, mostly in the 82.132... range, but some others too, so IP blocks are unlikely to achieve anything. He or she has also repeatedly openly stated the intention of continuing to edit-war indefinitely. For the moment the problem is stopped by article protection. If the problem returns we can consider a longer protection period, but it is possible the present limited protection may be enough to persuade the editor to give up. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

165.155.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Would you mind looking at the edits within this IP range (belonging to schools) and block it? FWIW, I tried investigating smaller options for the 165.155 range, but pretty much all of the /16 is nothing but vandalism. Although very long ago, this range has been blocked in the past: [48], but that's probably too far back to be relevant anymore, though... Thanks. 125.139.7.196 (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out to me. From the range 165.155.128.0/17 there is an extensive history of virtually 100% vandalism editing over many years, and various individual IP addresses are already blocked for short periods, which on the basis of the editing history of the range is likely to be ineffective, so I have blocked the range for 5 years. However, the range 165.155.0.0/17 has a far smaller amount of editing, the vast majority of which has been constructive, and although there was some vandalism from that subrange years ago, no recent edits have been vandalism, so I have left that range alone. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this user is user:Tiwahi. Their editing topics and edit summaries are quite similar. However, the account seems stale. 185.43.229.28 (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is an another one[49]. Usage of "&", editing areas(Nilotic peoples),etc. are all resembling each other. However, this one seems stale too. 185.43.229.28 (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

'James', but just but to wish you happy holidays and all the best for 2018. It's probably a lot warmer where I am than where you are 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Sock puppets are vandalizing A World of Difference page.[50] Simply stating in the "real" world is more simpler and accurate, "non-existent" is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.82.12.64 (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You placed some COI/advert maintenance templates on this article back in April. I edit it from time to time and was thinking it doesn't seem very COI/etc now. Would you mind taking a look and seeing if you think some of those templates could be removed? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

To me, it still reads like outright puffery. The list of "notable alumni" contains several people who are not and the references for them are distinctly weak. What the whole article really needs is some ruthless copy-editing. Sweetpool50 (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I seem to running into them, another one is vandalizing the The Punisher (2004 film) page[51] by stating it's a superhero film.

• 85.173.130.5
• 85.173.130.4
• 62.183.86.26 (13 November 2017)

It's strange that this user is not doing the same thing to the other Punisher film pages (The Punisher (1989), Punisher: War Zone and The Punisher: Dirty Laundry). But he/she is giving no reasons for the change since the Punisher is not listed as a superhero, only as "fictional character appearing in American comic books", a "antihero" and one of the Categories is "Fictional mass murderers"[52]... that's not a superhero. Simply being a comic book character is not enough since there are dozens of characters from comics but they don't have any of the usual traits such as super powers, a leather or a spandex costume and being a typical hero who saves the day. Æ-202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Æ-202: Also 62.183.86.189, 62.183.86.151, & 85.173.130.28. It has also happened at The Punisher (TV series), as for example here. I have semi-protected The Punisher (2004 film) for two months, and The Punisher (TV series) for six months, as it has already been protected for similar reasons a few months ago. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Me again. Username "Xarzo" vandalised Stockholm's climate page on December 18 by adding a fantasy 24.0°C avg high for July against the Météo Climat and SMHI sources for the article. Here is what he/she did and a link to it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stockholm&oldid=815941320

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xarzo

Seems like a one-time sockpuppet only conceived to vandalise.

I hope you'll take some action because it's not the first time Stockholm has been vandalised in that way and it's getting really old only discovering it weeks later after false info has been online for quite some time... Thanks for your help!

Lommaren (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lommaren: It may be a one-off sockpuppet or just a one-off single edit vandalism account. It's not possible to tell from just one edit. I have semi-protected the article for a month, which under the circumstances is the best that can be done, I think. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking action, let us hope it will be appropriate enough to avoid further incorrect edits to that specific Weatherbox! Best wishes: Lommaren (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

Hey, when you get a chance, I think 137.90.136.81 (currently blocked for two weeks) and 137.90.133.67 (currently blocked for 31 hours) should get rangeblock for their school. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, JamesB. Compare [53] and [54] with [55] and see if you hear quacking. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:6C48:7C00:140A:2D9F:659A:49E:CC67 as well. I guess you're away again, I'll try the vandalism noticeboard. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Yes, I was away. I'm back now, but recently even when I am around I have been editing much less than I used to, so it may take a while for me to answer posts. I have blocked the IP address you gave for a year, and also some others that I found for shorter periods. However, I have found that the editor has been around on various IP addresses since at least as far back as November 2015, and I have found an account that may be the same person, blocked since January 2016, so it may be difficult or impossible to stop the vandalism completely. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see you again. Got another group of ducks for you, all from around the Red Sea or Persian Gulf and have been changing redirects with zero discussion. One of them recently came off a week-long block and immediately returned to the same behavior; I've alerted the vandalism noticeboard. A list of them can be found here: [56]. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That animation/video game hoaxer is back again, already blocked for 31 hours. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.204.116.168 –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again James. In Tunis, I asked a user in the talk page to provide a quote from the source they added supporting their edit. They refused and then completely reworded what they initially added. The page they listed (54) is not available for preview on Google books, is there a way to view the page without having to purchase the entire book? If so, can you please check if it has anything to support their claim? It is from a French book. Would be much appreciated. Regards - Swazzo (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey James, the preview is available. You just need to change the ccTLD of the link to another one (from .com to .fr or .tn ...). Is it hard to do this ? This editor's behaviors are problematic. When he likes something, he'll leave it. If he doesn't like something, even if you provide a source he'll remove it and starts reverting. check this. I removed the claim from the infobox, as no source even discussed his origins, but no! Swazzo starts reverting and provides an unspecialist source (Google Books link) (a book about islamic architecture). Where is the quote ? I tried over 7 ccTLDs, even so, I couldn't read the source. You see the double standards? Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Please stop the ad hominem. All I did was ask you to provide a quote from the source supporting your edit. Regarding Abu Said al-Baji, P104 states "..Yahya al-Tamimi al-Badgi (1156-1231) settled on the site, and his tomb subsequently became a major pilgrimage spot.". Swazzo (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Where is the ad hominem ? All I did was proving that you're using double standards and "what I like is right and what I don't is wrong". Where is Al-Bagi's origin in the source? Did you conclude his origin on your own? or what? The nisba Al-Tamimi without the author saying that "Al-Bagi is from an arab origin..."or "Al-bagi is from banu tamim tribe" can't prove your claim. Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

concerning the quote you requested. p:54 "Que l'antique Tunes soit une création berbère, son nom incline à le penser", "L'origine punique étant rejeté, force d'admettre une origine berbère...." + "Le nom aurait pu être punique sans que la ville le fut; mais si le nom est berbère. force est de penser que la ville est une fondation autochtone.." Regards. -Aṭlas (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

A bit rich coming from you. What about this edit in Ptolemy of Mauretania[57]? an unreferenced claim saying he was from a certain tribe is OK but a reliable source saying the exact same thing is not? A perfect example of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Also, what is stated in the book does not seem to support your edit in its current phrasing. Regards - Swazzo (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello James, you deleted the talk page of the above article on 8 February 2011 – it was recreated on 7 December 2011, but as the article is an orphan and has never been attached to any WikiProjects, it appears that it has lain undiscovered until now. Is it possible to find out if the article is an identical recreation of the previous version? Richard3120 (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Richard3120: The talk page that I deleted contained nothing at all except for a link to OpEPA's web site. There was no article, just the talk page, until the article was created, as you say, in December 2011. The talk page was created anonymously by an editor using the IP address 190.146.133.131, which has never made any other edits. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your reply – the article does now contain a brief paragraph of text and a single reference, so obviously it doesn't qualify for a speedy deletion. Richard3120 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello James, While doing some copyediting and cleanup work I found some phone numbers in an article, which are supposedly contact numbers for places of worship but which for all I know are the private numbers of people associated with them. I couldn't verify one way or the other. The article is Pedakakani; I removed the numbers along with a lot of other unreferenced stuff but I'm not sure if those edits need to be RevDelled. Would you please take a look? Thanks, Reyk _YO! 13:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I've suppressed it as private info. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Quick and efficient. Thanks! Reyk _YO! 13:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi James! I'm the Content Expert for the above class. (You know me more as Tokyogirl79.) It looks like you had deleted some of the userpage content as NOTWEBHOST. I wanted to give a bit of an apology and an explanation. From what I can see, the essay was assigned in order to give the students a little practice writing and editing on Wikipedia without editing the mainspace, but there were no tags on the content to show this. I've added some tags for the material so that it will reflect on this. I've also suggested that this may be something that the students should turn in off Wikipedia. I believe that their future Wikipedia related assignments for this course should be more specific to Wikipedia and not be essay-like material like this. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I need help with this Page.

Google International Space Station

Grateful for all help,

--Out of this World Adventure (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello JamesBWatson.

I was surprised to see that the page Blackmagic Design was deleted about a week ago, since in my opinion it is clearly a relevant company for the film industry. I've tried to find the discussion of such action but only could find your deletion log where it states 'G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion'. I didn't have the chance to read the article and therefore I have no doubts about your claims, but could you please check it again in case the article deserves to be restored in some form? Otherwise I myself am willing to start it again from scratch, maybe translating it from other idiomatic versions.

Thanks in advance--Loquetudigas (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Loquetudigas: The article was given an "advert" tag by User:Theroadislong, and was then nominated for speedy deletion as promotional by User:Breaking sticks Another editor removed the speedy deletion tag not because he disagreed with it, but because he thought we should give time for improvements to be made. When I found the article no such improvements had been made, so I deleted it. I confess that looking at it now, although I see the article as clearly promotional in parts, I am not sure that speedily deleting it wasn't a bit hasty, as it is far from being the really blatant spam that we often get. I shall restore the article, but I still feel it is unacceptably promotional, so if you are willing to put some time into improving it in that respect that will be great. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. I'll try to clean it up, however if my efforts are not enough feel free to tag it again, since I was just randomly browsing some articles and cannot guarantee to make a perfect job. --Loquetudigas (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

[58] I put those IPs on there. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Might be? You mean you may have 100 socks or more? Can't you persuade your family to try to think of something else to give you for Christmas? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ha! Seriously, if those aren't My Royal Young socks cluttering up Dragon Quest Heroes: The World Tree's Woe and the Blight Below, they're a darn good imitation. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi James, I just wanted to ask for a little more detail about why my recently drafted page was deleted? I'm new to editing/writing on Wikipedia and have lots to learn, so I apologise for my naivety! It was my first attempt at a Wiki page and I'd really appreciate some guidance on how to improve it, although I can see certain elements of it now that do come across as promotional material/a fan page...Thanks in advance. -- Izzyarcoleo (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Nemroyo is a tendentious SPA that harms the neutrality and quality of many Wikipedia articles and clearly not here to improve articles. Habitual behaviours of this SPA: 1)Arbitrary and tendentious ("I just don't like it") content deletions 2)Major tendentious changes to sourced content with dishonest edit summaries 3)POV-pushing and edit warring.

Please see the user's last 'actions' on this article and other articles. "Related ethnic groups" part is about related ethno-linguistic groups, but for some reason, the user keep deleting Arabs and adding Armenians (an ethnic group who has totally different ethnogenesis). Also they deleted the sourced content regarding Arab-Assyrian genetic affinity and in their other edits, they, as usual, engaged in arbitrary content deletions, POV changes to sourced contents, soaping, etc.

I think the stable version should be restored and the recent changes should be discussed in the talk page. Btw, the article does need to be rewritten completely. In my opinion, it is far from being encylopedic-full of soap and tendentious contents, primary and unreliable sources, source falsifications, as an admin also mentioned in the talk page. It really harms the neutrality and reliability of Wikipedia. Apparently none of the admins, except for Future Perfect at Sunrise, pay attention to the problem and it is odd considering the page view statistics of the article. Regards, 24.86.158.114 (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like there was a recent dispute between Nemroyo and Thenabster126 over the last few days on Assyrian people, but it hasn't crossed over into the threshold of being actionable - not unless it continues. I don't see any other edits from Nemroyo that's potentially problematic... can you provide diffs and specific examples as to why you think of this user that way? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I've explained their habitual behaviour above. Anyone can check their edits for confirmation. Tendentiousness and arbitrary content deletions (including sourced ones), pov-changes to sourced contents, edit-warring to push their POV and the fact that they are a SPA are quite obvious. They were blocked 2 weeks due to the same reasons.24.86.158.114 (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That block was back in August 2017 - what about recent issues? Have you tried expressing your concerns with the user directly? I see a new message on his user talk page by an IP today, but I don't see recent responses on article talk pages by him. I don't see any other edits from your IP than the messages here (except one edit back in 2017 - probably not you) - can you point me to the places where you discussed this issue on a talk page? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem is not limited to their recent dispute with Thenabster126, but the general editing pattern of this single-purposed account. I did not and will not waste my time by talking with them, since I am sure that this will not change anything-this will not turn them into a neutral editor. The page is semi-protected and I don't contribute there. The problem with the article is that, there is only one admin paying attention to it (Future Perfect at Sunrise) and that is why I have contacted an admin, JamesBWatson, to bring the problems to his attention. If you think that the edits by Nemroyo are all OK, i.e. not tendentious, do not include "i just don't like it"-type deletions, and they are not a SPA harming neutrality of particular articles, I respect your opinion but I must say that I disagree with you. I'd like to hear JamesBWatson's opinion too. Thank you. 24.86.158.114 (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Here I have just found one diff for you [59]. The tendentious editor removed a sourced content from 2011 and their edit summary was "OUTDATED study". How a study from 2011 is outdated? Again, it is just one example to show their disruptive editing-pattern. There are many.24.86.158.114 (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: There are far more "outdated" content under the same section: studies from 1986, 1994, etc. but for some reason, the same editor did not touch them. If the "real" reason of the removal were being "outdated", they would remove those studies in the first place. A study from 2011 is not "outdated". It is just an example of this tendentious user's "i just don't like it"-type deletions. Please check all their edits. This is their editing-pattern and I don't think that they are here to improve articles. 24.86.158.114 (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretty weird that "three" accounts were "concerned" about this over the course of 24 hours, but I'll play ball here. First of all, there is no such thing as an "Indo-European" peoples and a "Semitic" peoples. By your logic, someone who is Norwegian (IE-speaker) is more closely related to a Bengali (IE-speaker) than to a Finn (Uralic-speaker). We can also make this comparison with someone who is Maltese (Semitic-speaker) and if they're closer to Italians (IE-speakers) or Yemenis (Semitic-speakers). So, like I told the other accounts that are "not" you, stop changing it. You clearly have an agenda here, which is why you want it reverted back to where it has inaccurate information.Nemroyo (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

These red herrings and ad hominems do not make you seem better. You should stop distorting my comments. The topic here is neither Semites nor Indo-Europeans. The issue here is your long-term tendentiois edits to add an totally different ethnic group to the infobox: Armenians have different ethnogenesis, culture, language and their area of settlement/homeland is in the Caucasus and historically northeastern Anatolia, differing from the Assyrians. You should show the reliable sources demonstaring that they are related. Otherwise stop vandalising article. Moreover, you should stop removing sources just because you do not like them. You simply deleted a well-sourced content from 2011, as being "outdated". 64.180.146.249 (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Short and sweet: 1)The SPA has been edit warring to add Armenians to infobox since 2016, without providing any reliable source and without trying to gain consensus on the talk page 2)The SPA has been removing sourced contents which he doesn't like, as he did yesterday. 3)The SPA was blocked due to his disruptive-tendentious edits in the past. 64.180.146.249 (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thank you to all of you for discussing this. The reason why I had a problem with adding Armenians as related to Assyrians is because it wasn’t unsourced. I even told him to source it. It seemed like I wasn’t the only one who had this problem.Thenabster126 (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Out_of_this_World_Adventure#Advice_on_starting_editing

- Out of this World Adventure

—  Preceding unsigned comment added by Out of this World Adventure (talk • contribs) 17:35, 5 January 2018‎

Dear User:JamesBWatson, just wanted to share information about a company Aludium, just like the there is the same page of a similar company 'Constellium'. Why can this page remain and my page not? Thank you for your feedback.Lcvoet (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lcvoet: It is natural for a new editor to look at existing articles to see what kind of thing is acceptable, but unfortunately doing so is not always a reliable guide. With vast numbers of new articles being created all the time, the editors who patrol new page creations are not able to check them all, and many articles which do not satisfy Wikipedia's standards slip through. Also, articles which start of satisfying those standards may be edited in ways which make them unsuitable. While many such unsuitable articles are spotted quickly and dealt with, some of them manage to remain for a long time before someone looks at them and realises that they are not suitable.

Thank you for drawing my attention to the article Constellium. Much of its content was not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, for several reasons, including the fact that much of its content was promotional, and the fact that it included totally an disproportionate amount of listing of details of the company's history which may be of interest to people involved in the company but which does not belong in a general encyclopaedia article addressed to the general reader. I have removed a large part of the article. It is very likely that there were some parts among what I removed which would be suitable to be kept, and maybe someone will be willing to put in the time and work needed to separate them out and restore them, but the substantial majority of it did not belong there.

There were various aspects of the draft that you created which were not suitable, such as repeated uses of such expressions as "high quality" and "leading supplier", which gave the piece a distinctly promotional feel. Nevertheless, I think I was mistaken in deleting it, since it was a draft rather than an article, and the whole point of a draft is that it allows an opportunity for improvements and corrections before being launched as an article. I have therefore restored the page, and I offer my apologies for my over hasty deletion. However, it is not yet ready to become an article, and I considered declining the submission for now, leaving you to work on improving it, but I have decided to leave it so that you get another opinion from another editor who will review it.

I don't think that I am one of the best people at advising new editors on how to improve drafts, but I will offer a couple of comments which I hope may help you. Firstly, I suggest that you carefully re-read the page, trying to imagine how it will seem to an independent reader who knows nothing about the company. Look out for anything which might come across as trying to persuade the reader that Aludium is a great company providing excellent products, because that is regarded as promotional, and does not comply with Wikipedia's policy that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view. (The article about Constellium was certainly not written from a neutral point of view.) Secondly, I suggest removing most if not all of the content about the history of the company. An extensive list of all the times when the company has done things like "revamping" its factories and when it has bought up other companies is the sort of thing a company might include in its marketing literature, but it is not the kind of thing that belongs in a general article about the company for the general reader. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

You must have missed my ping a few days ago. Could I get you to weigh in at this SPI, please? Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: Yes, I see there was a ping there which I somehow missed. Probably that was because it was buried in the middle of a string of 25 notifications of messages on my talk page on that day, and I didn't notice that in the middle of them there was one which was different from all the others. I'm afraid I don't remember the details from several months ago, and I don't now have time to do amount of checking that would be necessary. I will try to look into it as soon as I can, but it is not likely to be until at least Monday, for family reasons. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and no rush. With the account in question already blocked, this is fairly low priority. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I saw that you deleted Mihai Gruia Sandu via G4. Despite the similarity in name, that's actually not about the same person as Mihai Gruia (WP:Articles for deletion/Mihai Gruia). I don't know whether Sandu is notable, but I don't think G4 applies. Would you mind if I undelete the page? Huon (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Huon: I have undeleted it myself, since what you say is clearly correct and my deletion was a mistake. Thanks for pointing it out to me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi James,

I'm not sure if you saw my previous question about the deletion of a draft page I created? Would be great to have a little more feedback if you have time. Thanks! Izzyarcoleo (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Izzyarcoleo: First of all, apologies for not answering your previous message. For personal reasons I have been spending far less time on editing Wikipedia over the last couple of months than previously, and numerous messages have arrived when I have not had time to respond to them. I have always intended to come back and deal with them later, but in practice unanswered messages have sometimes been lost amongst the history of old edits to this page and forgotten.

The draft is not suitable as an article because it is written in an enthusiastic tone, as though the writer is trying to impress the reader with how great Everest Records is, rather than giving a neutral, dispassionate account. However, since you have asked about it I guess you are willing to put more work in and learn how to make it more suitable, so I have restored the draft to give you a chance to do more work on it. I have declined the article creation submission, and in doing so I mentioned a few examples of the kind of language which is not suitable. I hope that helps you. I shall also give you, on your talk page, some links to pages which may help you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: No worries at all - I can absolutely empathise with things slipping through the net. Many thanks for your reply, and for the information you've posted on my talk page too - it's much appreciated. You're right that the extensive guidelines I've found so far have been of varying degrees of usefulness, and after my initial Wiki studying I decided I'd just have to give it a go and learn from my mistakes! I'll get reading again and redraft the page accordingly.

With warm wishes, Izzyarcoleo (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)