User talk:Kuru: Difference between revisions

It seems like Andrewbf, can you sockpuppet him/her? 183.171.165.238 (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems painfully clear; exact same edits to the same articles, same editing pattern in general, and supporting reverts while logged out from a Mexican IP. I've blocked and tagged. Also blocked the IP. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt action. May I suggest his contributions be nuked too. He has created numerous user pages as evidenced here. LRD NO (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore my previous post as those edits do not seem to do any harm. Thanks again for your action. LRD NO (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up most of them before I saw this. Looks like everything is cleared up; please let me know if I missed anything. Kuru (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs up for the good work. Cheers. LRD NO (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you removed my edit from the page called "List of concept- and mind mapping software". Your comment says "rmv addition with no article", is this because I didn't link to an internal Wikipedia page? I would like to learn more about editing Wikipedia so that I can contribute more and in the correct way. I would be really grateful if you could help me.

Sarahmcgarr (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Sarah, 18 July 2014[reply]

Special:Contributions/Inidian maninian wrote "electronic influence genres in this music genre", which was the same as User:Thewatertribe wrote "Electronic genres influences in this genre" on talk page. 183.171.168.4 (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt update to the list of CEOs page.

I was wondering if you had any interest in getting involved in the McKinsey & Company page as well. It started as an attack piece about a year ago and has slowly started to shape up into an encyclopedic article. Following COI best practices, I mostly just make suggestions and offer content on the Talk page, but that means I have to find willing volunteers to collaborate with me. We've mostly just had various editors swinging by to review a section or two of draft content I put together. For example, next up I need to find someone to review a first draft of a "Notable works" section here CorporateM (Talk) 20:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kuru, User: Jusgtr has returned to reverting on Run the Jewels (album) (not even an edit summary this time), along with reverting on other articles. Maybe this user is just lacking the competence. STATic message me! 15:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I blocked him a few days ago and neglected to respond to you here. Please let me know if he pops back in and resumes the same disruptive behavior. Kuru (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am new here and it looks like you took down a post of mine. You stated "rmv addition with no article." I google searched (and searched on wikipedia) for RMV addition and I could not find a definition. Could you describe what you mean?

Also you stated no article - which I see on many other posts as well. As far as I can tell an article is not required. I apologize if I am mistaken, but I would be happy to fix whatever I am doing wrong. I am just looking for some direction on what you feel is missing or needs to be revised. Based on your comments I could am not sure what to correct.

I appreciate your time and look forward to your reply.

- Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etczerwonka (talk • contribs) 21:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Eric. Apologies for using abbreviations in my edit comments. I watch a large number of articles and my mobile browser refuses to remember edit summaries I've used in the past. In this case, 'rmv' is simply shorthand for 'removed'. As you surmised, I've removed the entry for your software as the criteria for inclusion on that page is that there is an existing article in place. This inclusion criteria is shown clearly in edit comments when you edit the page, and are summarized on the article's talk page. If you feel there is something special about your addition, or you feel the inclusion criteria is invalid and would like to change the consensus on that, please start a discussion there. Kuru (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I requested your help several days ago with filing an appeal for a topic ban. Please advise me of the appropriate forum for doing so as it is still unclear to me after reading the ban notice. Wikieditorpro (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your topic ban notice, there is a link to the appeal process. As noted, your options are 1) to appeal directly to the administrator who placed the restriction, 2) post an appeal at the AE Noticeboard, or 3) appeal directly to the arbitration committee. I'm not sure on what is unclear. Can you be more specific on where you are confused? Kuru (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my reading of the appeals notice it was my understanding that I needed to use the administrator's noticeboard as the next step in the appeals process. Thank you for the clarification. Wikieditorpro (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A final question: Does the 500 word limit at AE Noticeboard apply to appeals too? And if so, where would I request permission to exceed the limit? Wikieditorpro (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Gutierrez still works for KSAT. --66.69.70.111 (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Please find a reliable source, and be careful not to use false sources. Kuru (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not sure. --66.69.70.111 (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably no reason to protect the page for that long, cause I think we just about solved it. Koala15 (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you keep an eye for the page? (which who add genre on Stylistic field similar as Andrewbf) 115.164.217.253 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corky removed the on-air staff for KSAT, WOAI and KENS. We need to reverted it back. --24.170.75.206 (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it violates WP:LISTPEOPLE. Here is a quote from another user:

If you would like more proof that it has been discussed, I'll be glad to provide them to you. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 03:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the security? --24.170.75.206 (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history of those embedded lists, I don't disagree with Corky's position. They've been abused significantly in the past and are a bit of a WP:BLP nightmare when some of the unsourced crap in them goes un-noticed on low traffic pages. Instead of reverting, it may be helpful for you to state your position on why you disagree on the article's talk page so that you can lay out a counter position. Kuru (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On-air staff is not unsourced. --24.170.75.206 (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might have hit the wrong button; instead of disabling talk page access, you disabled email. He re-blanked, but I fixed it. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 15:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally hit the wrong button; my bad. I'm adjusting to mobile technology slowly... :) Thanks! Kuru (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indiaman2223 and Special:Contributions/187.211.100.157 seems likely Andrewbf's pattern, recently disrupting defended Binksternet on house music, Stay the Night (Zedd song) and Clarity (song). Another account is Inidian maninian, named instead of Indian man, he/she posted on talk page for house music, similar with first diff. 183.171.167.215 (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is clearly the same problematic editor, and I've blocked the account as well. Since he's mixing accounts and IPs, you may want to file an WP:SPI to see if there are other accounts. Kuru (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you weighed in at Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia and maybe you are the person to talk to about this. I suspect there is much editing of Wikipedia by public relations people wanting to tout their companies. My local Craigslist often has ads from companies soliciting people to write articles on Wikipedia. Anyhow, I think I found a clear violation of this at Nextdoor. Editor User ACD27 has contributed only to articles about Nextdoor and has also proposed an article called Draft:National Good Neighbor Day. Not coincidentally, the Nextdoor company has started a campaign to make "National Good Neighbor Day" part of its company promotion. See, for example, "Nextdoor Launches Campaign to Celebrate National Good Neighbor Day." Or see Nextdoor's in-company blog, which has several posts about "National Good Neighbor Day.", most written by the company's head of PR, Anne Dreshfield (ACD27?) This could very well be an example of someone using Wikipedia to promote a company. Does Wikipedia have a means to call attention to people using the encyclopedia for PR? I bet it happens a lot. Chisme (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HI Kuru,

Just FYI, my reporting User:Juno for edit-warring was not retaliatory, as you suggested. If you go to the TALK page of the UNITED STATES PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT page, and search for the word "occasionally", you will see that Juno repeatedly reverted my edits, that I tried to engage in compromise/dialog with him/her, and that I warned him/her that I would report him/her for edit warring if he/she reverted my edit again. The fact that she/he reported me had nothing to do with my reporting him/her.

Also, I am finding it very difficult to learn how to report users properly, and generally to use Wikipedia's templates. The DIFF page is very confusing (I see no "radio buttons", whatever those may be) and the template page for notifying editors that they have been reported for edit-warring ("an3-notice") is less than useless--what data is one supposed to put onto that page, and where??? How does one actually send the notification to the reported user? In the end I had to warn USER: Juno that I had reported him/her by leaving a hand-typed note on his/her TALK page.

Best wishes, Goblinshark17 (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello kuru i am new to wikepedia and i was wondering how i edit pages without vadalizing them i want to upload my own page but i'm not sure how to get the 10 edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berndern (talk • contribs) 03:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Virtual" range block. Thank you. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kuru- Hi, I was advised to first voice my disagreement on your page. My response to your decision on my report of a user blatantly edit warring due to bias (against the content especially, evidence by what I'd included under comments), and ignoring requests to discuss is here, under your comment. To quote it:

@Kuru, the genres aren't the primary concern here. The recent album diffs that were first linked above (and expounded on in the second paragraph under Comments here) are. Why are those not mentioned? Why is the blatant edit warring (2 reverts of same information currently), rooted in cherry-picking and tendentious editing (as mentioned above), NOT a violation? Please explain directly. "Your best bet would be to continue your content dispute in the existing discussions on the article's talk pages" - there is none of that, as the reported user does not need that since he feels he can just revert what he disagrees with even if it's accurate and cited (as in the album page), clearly enabled by a post like yours. He has not bothered to consider the discussion created, and especially won't now, and in removing the noticeboard temp on his talk page, said: "That was quick.". I'd suggested he use a Request for Comment (as I'd used before on another page), and he has not bothered. So, please elaborate, as what your response currently does is enable this WP:OWN-inspired edit warring, and suggests to other editors with his inclinations, and editors on the other end like myself, that it can just keep happening without any consequence. If you don't consider this blatant edit warring behavior, then I'd like another admin opinion here on the diffs presented.

Adding to that: As I mentioned in the report, this user has a history of such, and has no intention of pursuing any discussion. The only thing he's done is twice revert the Wiki-adhereing, accurate copy edit (which would make two negative quotes he agrees with contextually less severe), and will continue to revert if the edit is made again. I'd already started a discussion on the talk page prior to making the report. Again, he has no intention of listening, evidenced by his inaction and his edit summaries on the NYKOP album page (first two diffs provided). I repeat, he will revert again if the useful copy edit is added again. Why is this being ignored and such behavior, by a lack of consequence and direct commentary, vindicated and enabled? Please see WP:COMPETENCE (under "bias-based"), plus, I quote the definition of edit warring directly from the noticeboard project page: "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute." - which is exactly what this is -, and I quote from the Admin instructions page: "Users may be blocked for continued edit warring to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. A violation of the 3RR rule (see below) is not a requisite for an editor to be blocked for edit warring." --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be having a very minor content dispute, where another editor has reverted you twice. In no way would I personally block someone for such unless this was a continuation of a previous edit war, there was egregious policy violation (BLP, copyvio, etc), or if there were mitigating sanctions on the topic. None of these seem to be the case. I would suggest reviewing WP:DR and bringing other opinions to the article if you feel he will revert you in the future; you may want to also leave him a message directly on his talk page - something that discusses the content. As always, you are free to take this to ANI if you feel there is something more to this that I am missing, but the edit warring issue does not appear to be significant enough for a block. Kuru (talk) 10:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The magnitude of the content dispute is irrelevant here. The fact that edit warring ("Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring".) is taking place without discussion, and will continue to take place when the copy edit is made again, is notable, and, with no disrespect, what you are willfully ignoring and validating. Essentially telling this user and anyone else reading (such as the user he pinged) that this behavior is laissez faire and not given warning or consequence is a complete detriment to Wiki-abiding users like myself and Wikipedia editing community as a whole. Need I link to the history page again (most recent edits);, it is evident the user's only intention is to edit war, and need I repeat he's done this many times before. Take a look at his contribution history and see that it's full of reverts of other editor's contributions, with little to no evidence of participation in discussions related to the disputed content. (And here, his last revert of an edit of mine (before this); see that what I did was remove a genre that is not at all sourced, yet look at what he laughably claimed in his edit summary (what he actually did); I didn't bother with it again). Again, as I linked, there is such thing as a topic ban ("The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive"). Again, this user is clearly biased against this page (the linked album page), and will not allow anything that accurately makes text appear less than strictly negative, WP:OWN, WP:TE, WP:DE, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:AGF, WP:ONLYREVERT. The fact so much Wiki-policy violation clearly inspires his edit warring is notable, and that he has no care to partake in discussion, and especially won't now, and stunning that you personally do not deem it such. How in the world is this minor and not of consequence? Are you letting me know I can just do what the user freely engages in without any problem? I can just keep readding the copy edit and he automatically reverting without bothering to engage in the discussion, without consequence? As I've said, this isn't about a personal dispute with the user, this is about the user's edit warring being strictly against Wiki-policy and it being a detriment to the progress of this article, hence my report in the appropriate noticeboard. Do you really consider this insignificant and not worth your trouble (e.g., a simple, strongly needed topic ban?) --Lpdte77 (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have my response above; you seem to be confusing policies, guidelines, and user-created essays. We don't seem to agree with your interpretation of the edit warring policy, and I am unpersuaded by your tirade above. I will not be blocking the editor in question, nor will I be unilaterally applying sanctions to the account based on your request. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All linked pages are directly from Wikipedia, the Wikipedia guidelines and policies, all created through consensus; what everyone at Wiki goes by including admins. If you wish to interpret them your own way and/or apply them arbitrarily, and too refuse to acknowledge the specific quotes from those being blatantly violated in the diffs, than that is up to you, and reflects on you, not on me (as you seemed to imply). Thanks. --Lpdte77 (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Don't think you're interesting anymore in the matter, but just to follow up: the reported user decided to let the copy edit pass, so such dispute is settled.--Lpdte77 (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,I have seen some of interview of Carlos slim standing near ex us president bill Clinton whose height is 6 ft 2 inch and both are of same height i.e. 6 ft 2 inch which is not mentioned in Wikipedia,so its my request that the height could also be included in Carlos slim Wikipedia.Also,Carlos slim recently acquired 59.7 percent stake in telecom Austria in Europe which could also be included and its by joint effort of all of us,the page could be improved more and more better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asuluck27 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, at a minimum you must provide reliable sources for material added to biographies of living persons. Your observations on his height do not match this requirement. Even if you provide sources, you'll need to find an appropriate place to add the material in the article. I would note that his height is very unlikely to be notable enough to add into the article's lead paragraph, if at all. The material related to his acquisition of TA is already in the article and described in detail; if you feel there is something wrong with that material, please feel free to correct it. Again, please use sources. If you need help adding these citations, I'm happy to help; I know if can be a little confusing. Kuru (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is violation of the 1RR rule if i revert the editing which was made without identifying the source which can confirm it in this Module Syrian Civil War detailed map. Or I can undo all edits which was made ​​without specifying the source without violating the 1RR rule. Here is example of such editing: here Hanibal911 (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, no. "Unsourced" is not an exempt category of reverts. Kuru (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Kuru,

You know what I just noticed? I don't know why I didn't notice this before or try anything with it, but I just now saw that your protection of a page has an "undo" button with it just like editions do. Will you please go protect One Magnificent Morning again for a little while so that I can see what happens if a non-admin. presses "undo"? Why didn't I try that before? What is it that the system says or does if a non-admin. presses "undo" on the page-protection action?

And if an admin. clicks it, it just unprotects the page without question, or is there still something special that the system says first? And if so, what? Will you show me, please (by actually reprotecting that page or your page or something for a short time)?

75.162.179.246 (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm sorry to bother you, but I have a suspicion that a banned user originally known as Andrewbf and then under various "sock puppet" names, has returned to Wikipedia with a new IP address - 187.194.12.23

This address's location is, apparently, Mexico, the same as Andrewbf's, and he/she has been making identical "stylistic origins" changes to the House Music page (and now to the Electropop page) as former identities. I have tried to accommodate him/her and to treat the changes with good faith and give the benefit of the doubt, but in reality I do doubt their logic and fear further problems. This user has also been causing problems on another page, which has now been protected.

I would be grateful if you would visit the user's talk page/history if time allows and perhaps consider protecting the House Music and Electro Pop pages if the problem persists.

Many thanks.

(Etheldavis (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Clearly him, thanks; blocked the IP. Not sure about protection as he seems to haunt a large number of articles. He's not hard to spot. Kuru (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how to handle the IP editor at One Magnificent Morning were you protected the page. He doesn't care about reliable sources in an attempt to enforce his own opinion. He also make personal attacks about my grammar and spelling and tries to make me the issue. When reporting to page protection, admins will only page protect for "enough recent disruption". Spshu (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Per WP:DUCK Overdtop, whose unblock request you just declined, is back as 37.203.115.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), repeating both Overdtop's edits and their behaviour, with personal attacks in this edit summary. Thomas.W ^talk 14:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Clearly closely related to 37.203.115.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), too. I've done a small rangeblock. Bishonen | talk 16:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Kuru. I have been blocked before and I realize my mistakes. I will create a new account but I want to know, what counts as vandalism? I want to know so I can avoid doing so again. Please tell me or link me to the article. Thanks. 96.18.103.195 (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)random user[reply]