Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:34, 16 September 2017

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Shortcuts

WP:ANI
WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352
353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362
Incidents (archives, search)
1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147
1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473
474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Repeat topic ban violations by Instaurare

Instaurare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has again violated his topic ban from LGBT-related articles by nominating List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups for deletion and this edit. He has previous violated this topic ban, documented here and here. At some point, this topic ban needs to grow some teeth so that Instaurare will stop violating it.- Mr X 03:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you remembered these things from 4-5 years ago, because I didn't. Instaurare (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit.- Mr X 03:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? Instaurare (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Instaurare: Since the AfD is heading for keep, could you kindly to not comment any further, and file an official appeal for your topic ban at WP:AN, which is still being logged in place? Alex Shih ^Talk 04:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the AfD as "no action" since its initiation was improper from the start. Thought SNOW likely would have been the outcome given more time. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: Someone violates a topic ban, and, instead of enforcing it, we recommend they file an appeal? That seems... out of place. — nihlus kryik (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, considering there have been previous violations, and I don't believe that the editor has forgotten about the ban (which is irrelevant anyway), I believe a block is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but for a topic ban that was placed in 2012 and never officially enforced despite of previous possible violations in 2013 as indicated by the diffs here, I would like to stay put for the next move of this editor. In the meanwhile, pinging @HJ Mitchell: for more information. Alex Shih ^Talk 05:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it was never enforced it should be enforced now dammit. --Tarage (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One can't simply "wait out" an indefinite sanction until people forget about it. At the very least, unless you find out from HJM that the TB has been lifted or has run out, the editor should receive a reminder that it is still in effect, and a stern final warning that any future violation no matter how far in the future from now will be met with a substantial block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Fair enough, final warning has been issued. Alex Shih ^Talk 07:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just leave these here for further evaluation of the behavior patterns of this editor: SPI of NYyankees51 (his account before renaming, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion ("NYyankees has engaged in an exchange that suggests a battlefield mentality"). I don't think a warning is sufficient, but I'd like to see what Harry Mitchell says. Mojoworker (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Harry Mitchell EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging HJ Mitchell - I don't know if pinging a userpage redirect works; this is his actual account. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much light I can shed. My main involvement was five years ago and I don't think Instaurare and I have spoken recently. A warning and words of advice would have been reasonable in my opinion for the initial complaint since there doesn't seem to have been an upheld complaint since it was enacted, but I can't see any arguing against a block for another violation while the first one is being discussed at ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked - 4 days ago, Instaurare edited Mark Herring, the Virginia Attorney General who famously refused to defend the Virginia Marriage Amendment against same-sex marriage. It is my opinion that this edit falls within the "broadly construed" scope of the topic ban, which has been adequately explained in past discussions (in particular this one) and which Instaurare was warned about by Alex Shih less than two weeks ago (link above). While the edit was constructive, banned means banned, and editing within the scope of the restriction so soon after being both warned and given instructions to appeal is a flagrant violation. It's also neither their first warning, first advice to appeal, nor first violation. The community strongly expressed a desire for Instaurare to stay out of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia no matter how tangentially related ("broadly construed") and there is no indication here that that sentiment has changed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request block of User:Johnvr4

Johnvr4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to request a block of User:Johnvr4 under WP:NOTHERE. To quote User:Nick-D in March this year, Johnvr4 "doesn't seem interested in working collaboratively to develop neutral and appropriate encyclopedia articles. ..I believe that a block would be justified by [his] repeated attempts to create articles which are unreliable and inability to listen and respond to the concerns which multiple editors have raised about them .. . Fundamentally, I don't think that Wikipedia is an appropriate location for the stuff [Johnvr4] want[s] to publish, or that [his] approach to doing so is in line with Wikipedia's collaborative ethos." (User talk:Nick-D#U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands). Johnvr4 is repeatedly trying to create articles which are severely biased against the U.S. government's view on things, and distorts sources to do so. This was raised at the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat by User:Moe Epsilon, in regard to a reference which was distorted [1], at User_talk:Johnvr4#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie, and at U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan over the reasons for removal of nuclear weapons from Okinawa (partially due to a perceived vulnerability to terrorism, which Johnvr4 repeated tried to downgrade from the article). He also is repeatedly unable or unwilling to recognise a consensus formed against him [2] and has recreated his preferred version of deleted content three times in his sandbox after an MfD was closed against him (see User talk:Johnvr4#Red Hat content, and further advisory by User:RoySmith (User talk:Johnvr4#Recreation warning). Another example of concerns about his editing style came from User:AustralianRupert at [3]. This user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia in line with WP's principals, and I kindly request that he be blocked from further editing. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Power~enwiki (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for now I'm still not fully done reading below, so I'll put this in for now. —JJ B^e ^rs 01:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: at [4] Moe Epsilon said: "You have only edited a small handful of article topics and I can't look through your editing history and find an example of you making major changes to an article and then not having a major dispute on the talk page. Your contributions have either been deleted outright, reverted partially or debated upon heavily. That is concerning. I told you back in 2014 that was concerning because I took a single reference you supplied, which was used several times in your writing, and it wasn't factually accurate according to what the references said." which again is another indicator of the problems this user causes. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please pardon my interruption but I'd like to inform this discussion of Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge#New_requests forOperation Red Hat where the history of the text that User:Moe Epsilon once accused me of "cooking up in my spare time" as a reason for AfD as well as Bucksohot06 assertions about it in MfD, DRV, and here will soon be visible again. those editors and others had been told very clearly the assertion ~~he continues to put forth~~ about submitting that text is untrue. Buckshot06 restored that very text. The restored page history will make those misrepresentations apparent despite his stated opposition to restoring it.Johnvr4 (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely regretful support from an involved party. I actually sort of like John. My second discussion with him on my talk page indicates that he can carry on a concise and non-bludgeoning discussion when he chooses to. He was very polite about accidentally referring to me as "he" instead of "she", and came to my talk page to apologize about feeling like he'd villified me/dragged me into this mess. I genuinely don't think John is being intentionally disruptive just for the sake of causing problems. I think if we could get him to edit about anything else that he didn't have such a strong passion for, he'd be a great contributor. I think the problem is that he has such an obsessive passion for how he sees Red Hat/weapons deployment/related topics that he gets complete tunnel vision and blocks out anything that contradicts his own view of the topic and our policies here. He gets frustrated that we can't see what he sees, leading him to produce ever-lengthier posts trying to convey his point but instead alienating his intended audience in the process. I don't know that there is a viable alternative to blocking, possibly save a broadly-construed topic ban for anything related to Red Hat/weapons deployment/similar. But I admit I have doubts as to whether that would be effective or merely a postponement of a block. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if my comment here is appropriate but I am OCD and spectrum. But not just on any one particular issue. I also have some nerve damage, adrenal tumor that jacks me up, and I nearly failed typing (sorry for the typos- I'm disabled). I would consider myself an expert on the material simply because I have read every reliable source I had cited (there were like 250) and did not synthesize if I had to use a public domain report or lesser primary source until a better one is found. Numerous times I have suggested to simply follow our sources or allow addition of a new ones as a compromise to end every dispute. However, that literally never ever happens with said editor as I have documented repeatedly. I was/am frustrated, mouthed off a bit too. To nearly everyone. I was actually shaking after it was nominated and then deleted. I apologize again.Johnvr4 (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I've taken a look at a randomish sampling of editing over the last few months and don't feel that a NOTHERE argument applies. Obviously, there is some less than optimum pugnacity with the editing, but this appears to be a good faith editor adding sourced content. Carrite (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I actually hatted a discussion on PMC's talk where Johnvr4 was going over oard, but he came back and had a reasonable conversation. I'm not convinced that the very WP:INVOLVED Admin is correctly asessing this situation. We don't have to follow the US Govt view of things and accusations American is editing against American seems hard to believe. Perhaps BuckShot06 needs to lay off Johnvr4 and Nohnvr4 should edit other topics. Legacypac (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having followed this since the original AFD, I can safely say this is probably the eventual route that will have be taken. If he is not blocked, then a topic ban will definitely need to be implemented, broad-construed to prevent him from working on anything related to Operation Red Hat and military-based articles. John has a very hard time communicating concerns and actually addressing problems with his content, and this is a long standing issue. @Carrite: I feel like John is here to add sourced content as well, however his content is misleading or synthesized at times, and several editors have addressed that. It's a problem that goes back to the days of him first editing five years ago on the same topic. His behavior hasn't changed much and his problematic content went from being on the main articles to his sandboxes, which he has attempted to write for four years now with little to no improvement to follow Wikipedia standards (which is what the MFD was about). If John is not willing to take a topic ban and edit other topics, then this has to be the route to take because he is so engulfed in this behavior around these topics that it is now disruptive. I only support a block now because the few times I saw John edit outside his usual few articles, it ended up in content disputes as well and having content disputes this frequently is toxic. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Can't support the NOTHERE assertion as I don't feel anything has been presented to support it. Let's start by removing the useless stuff from the equation, the discussion on Nick-D's talk page can be succinctly summarised as "NOTHERE block and be done with it". This is not really helpful to this discussion. Provide me with a reason to support the NOTHERE assertion that does not stem from a NOTHERE assertion. The AfD from 2013 is unhelpful because, while it demonstrates (possibly) incompetence or poor source utilization it doesn't do anything even close to demonstrate NOTHERE (not to mention it was four years ago). Then there's the discussion on John's page (User_talk:Johnvr4#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie) that eventually boils down to, the sources don't use the word interceptor therefore don't use the word interceptor. Everything else was cleared up by quotes from the actual sources, or at least appears to have been based on Buckshot's response; [t]hanks for these. Clearly inteceptor isn't referenced. I will remove the words 'interceptor' etc, ... , and substitute with 'hydrogen-bomb-armed'. I mean this discussion if anything is demonstrative of the "here" part of NOTHERE. Then, last but not least, I'm actually presented with a concern that could be addressed. So let me address it; recreation of a procedurally deleted article that has undergone deletion review that supported the original deletion closure is valid grounds to argue disruptive editing. Please don't do that again. Sometimes, you'll have to accept that your work is not suitable for the encyclopaedia. Now, I'm going to take a moment to address something that was sort of brought up tangentially, but, isn't the central concern. Concern: I find that Johnvr4 has a problem maintaining composure and civility when discussing (or arguing) with other editors. This is not helpful to them or others. For example, the discussion on Johnvr4's talk page that I mention John actually asserts that they will edit war for their preferred version because of perceived incompetence on the part of Buckshot06. Evidence; ... I'll keep putting it back in. An edit war will ensue and your failure to read sources or discuss until now...and assertions (like those above) about the alleged lack of a similar passage in sources will be your huge problem. In conclusion, I don't see NOTHERE as presented, but, I do see civility and composure issues that may need some form of addressing. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2013 AfD is actually highly relevant, as JohnVR4 has kept trying to recreate this article (in various forms) despite the concerns raised in the AfD and its result, and the many subsequent discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I may interject, the appropriate link to that discussion is here :Air defense interceptors/Genie The argument was whether the Interceptor came directly from the original source I used- clearly it did yet the other editor would not acknowledge the obvious fact that the word was in that source despite thanking me for sources. I sort of citation bombed him with sources that quote F-100s, with Nukes, Genies at Naha on Alert as well as most of the WP main pages that also had it because he was being so absurd. And we are here talking about it now simply because he said a word is not there in that source. But it is and always has been. It was an Edit War and that concern was 100% his absurdity and I warned him to never ever try to fight anyone over that point. Yet that is precisely what he did today! Please please explore it further! And look at the reverts made that are contrary to reliable sources. He's done that exact same thing multiple times while stating in MfD that I never improved or condensed any material from my sandbox! That main space material was moved from my sandbox. Johnvr4 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The context for the quote and my prediction of an edit war was in response to Buckshot06's threats and actions to keep removing our very highly reliably sourced content: "You need a source for nuclear-armed interceptors standing ready for scrambling on Okinawa, and until you provide that, I've remove the paragraph again. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)" I hope that addresses (or characterizes) Mr rnddude's concern.

I thought I was pretty nice about it in warning him given the wall I was beating my head against by simply continuing to even interact with that editor. The full quote was: "...Do not make me pull out quotes! I don't have time for such silliness. No one does. If you cant or won't read the sources, I'll keep putting it back in. An edit war will ensue and your failure to read sources or discuss until now...and assertions (like those above) about the alleged lack of a similar passage in sources will be your huge problem. So I'm going to formally warn you now. Stop and review the sources that you've said you already reviewed. If you had done so, we would not be having this discussion!". Johnvr4 (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC) 20:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC) I have only just remembered that Buckshot06 deleted that very source on Mar, 20. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, you're right. It's clear as day on the 1981 CDI article. I had missed it both on your talk page and in the article; During the late 1950s and early 1960s the F-100 Super Sabre served as a primary interceptor. On top of that the Mindling/Bolton source explicitly states that F-100s were present at Okinawa and were nuclear arms equipped. That said, content is an issue that two people can mutually resolve if they are willing to discuss. Content problems shouldn't be the reason we are here. There are better ways to deal with these kinds of issues than outright edit-warring too. One, you can ask for a WP:3O. Two, you can withhold the material and discuss on the talk page (this was done, both at your talk and at the article talk, so kudos for that). Three, if need be, you can do and RfC. I've found a section (argument really) that I'm going to go read through. I am getting more lost, rather than less, as to what the issue actually is. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Block. JohnVR4 is essentially a single purpose editor whose contributions are focused on adding inaccurate and POV pushing material. This includes material which is not supported by the citations provided, as well as cherry picking material and developing large articles which are nothing but WP:SYNTH - to such an extent that they can't even be reduced to stubs. As noted in the post at the top of this discussion, multiple interventions by a large number of editors in good standing have not been successful in persuading him to change his ways or even seriously acknowledge that his editing is problematic. I think it's fair to say that the editors who have been involved with JohnVR4 have exhausted their patience with him. As he is not editing Wikipedia in good faith or in a collaborative way, he should be blocked to prevent further edits which post misleading information and disruptive conduct. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are clearly problems here, but I'm convinced that JohnVR4 has good intentions and genuinely believes his additions are beneficial to the encyclopedia, and is not deliberately trying to push inaccuracies and POV (even if that might at times be the result). As such, I don't see that WP:NOTHERE is applicable - "Difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms" is given as a specific "not not here" example. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, I think a topic ban would stand a better chance of consensus, if someone were to propose one with an appropriate scope. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:NOTHERE is for users who come here purely to troll other wikipedians. While his edits/comments might cause problems, this is a good faith editor, who needs to improve some aspects of his editing. Perhaps a short topic ban, so he can learn to edit well on subject that he isn't closely connected to might help. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (involved editor) In one of the last interactions with Buckshot06 (when I thought we parted ways) I left him this message[5]: "...We just seem to bring out the worst in each other and only produce long discussion with out agreement, and embarrass each other then feel bad, over human errors. I tried to explain to you myself numerous times that our sources need to be looked at closely. The fact is that three other editors also looked at that concern and could not have missed it then failed to point that out to you when you asked, probably did disservice to both you and to I. We unnecessarily wasted a lot of time on this. The way I have interacted with you since was a direct reflection of my frustration in feeling that you are also difficult to work because you refused to look at the sources to verify content. If our paths cross in the future I hope that the interaction will be constructive and fruitful and not at all like many of our previous interactions. Peace. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Unfortunately, as one might note, what I had suggested and hoped is not even remotely what has happened since. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support - Having had a look at Johnvr4's edits I have to agree with Nick-D that "JohnVR4 is essentially a single purpose editor whose contributions are focused on adding inaccurate and POV pushing material." However the discussion here shows that he is eager to continue as an editor on wikipedia. My proposal would be a topic ban for all nuclear weapons and military in Japan related articles; with an additional warning that any further disruption of wikipedia will result in an immediate block. noclador (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Topic ban at most, since this is topical and there's no indication the editor is WP:NOTHERE, i.e. not generally constructive and trying to do the right thing. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block. JOhnvr4 is clearly here to be a contributing editor, but he really needs to heed advice from the more experienced editors that have been trying to help him. I would not oppose a short term topic ban to help him get to grips in subjects outside of this topic area. Mentorship may also be an option. Blackmane (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hounding of JohnVR4, userspace and main space submissions by Buckshot06

Buckshot06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Buckshot06 and I have longstanding, heated and unresolved content disputes. He has characterized the disputes as me creating Fake articles and has made numerous baseless policy concerns in talk and recently at Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat as well as to support his arguments in discussions. I have responded to his faulty assertions here:DRV JohnVR4 user spaces and at my talk page. His near-pathological misrepresentations take walls of my text to explain away and as a result my concerns are ignored most recently at WP:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_30. He has repeatedly threatened to Mfd my userspace draft that was actively being edited 1.5 hours before he nominated it over obviously ridiculous concerns or assertions (such as those he raised in the previous section). His assertions are easily disproved in discussion, diffs, quotes, sources, and every other available method to Wikipedia editors.

Despite my numerous pleas, Buckshot06 repeatedly refuses to read or acknowledge majority and minority opinions in cited reliable sources and then battles over text based upon his strong views and advanced degrees instead of reviewing the reliable sources (especially the newer ones) or opening a content dispute where our issues should be publicly resolved rather than being reverted or deleted outright or having an edit war. He then accuses me of not listening or a plethora or other dubious accusations. I wanted to work together and have asked for help but is is clear that Buckshot06 and I cannot see eye to eye and never will. We have decided to stay away from each other and he has now apparently followed up on a second one of his past (and also ridiculous) threats by opening the above section. This is the third time he has Accused me of an Anti DoD/US stance without the slightest merit and he does not seem to realize that I write from a reliable and documented source standpoint and most importantly, I am from U.S. a military family, from the U.S., which I still support (despite our country's current regime embarrassment). I take I great offense at his third anti-Us accusation (I warned him about it before) as well as his accusation that my thousands of edits were all in bad faith and do not improve Wikipedia -which he has already contradicted in his own words more times than I can count.

That editor has near-pathological pattern of misrepresentation including in his misleading explanations of the links he provided in the above section. On the advisory by User:Moe Epsilon- For example, one editor User:Moe_Epsilon at the [AFD] ~~fabricated~~ a concern about my editing and claimed "I cooked something up." Then that editor made all types of other ridiculous assertions that are disproved by a source (plus the ones already mentioned) which I added only minutes before Buckshot06 deleted the entire sandbox4 draft just this week! The Diffs that were deleted (which I cannot see because I am not an administrator) would prove that I did not write that passage- but there is no just way to see it now since all the diffs are gone. (Well not just yet anyway...Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge#New_requests) The diffs would prove that Buckshot06 himself put that nonsense that got the page deleted right back on the main space and abused all of the sources he cited.[6] Note also that Buckshot06's POV version of Operation Red Hat is missing most of the majority and minority viewpoints in every single one of the sources he has cited.

I owe User:Moe Epsilon a bit of an apology. to clarify all my previous comments, he in fact did not accuse me of writing the night move passage at AfD. That was the false assertion of an IP editor. I sincerely apologize for any representation that connecting Moe's comment of cooking stuff up and the faulty concern that I submitted the passage about moves of chemicals at night. Sorry for that mix up Moe. Johnvr4 (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the advisory by User:RoySmith- User_talk:RoySmith#Ignoring_of_views_at_DRV, Administrators noticeboard#Closure_review_DRV_of_JohnVR4_userspace_Sandbox_drafts

BuckShot06 makes various entirely merritless claims which I've already disproved to him. In the examples he provided he has fiercely contested moves from my sandbox and is still actively contesting them which proves his main issues with me is a content dispute where he wont acknowledge what a reliable source says (and Note his totally disproved POV complaint) but more importantly his assertions that my sandbox draft where the material is coming from has not been improved nor condensed are utterly absurd: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Terrorist_threat_and_weapons_removed_in_1972-_Apparent_POV and here: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie

Discussion

This thread appears to be the immediate follow-up to a closed DRV thread, itself a follow-up to a XfD thread, itself a follow-up to an AfD from 2013. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV was a followup to the discussion at my user talk, which followed my closure of the MfD (reverted once by John because he disagreed). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happily confirm Power~enwiki's summary, as well as PMC's note. The MfD was about my last throw to see if Johnvr4 was anything more than an SPA. It appears he has not changed his ways at all, and I do not believe he should be here. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review DRV of JohnVR4 userspace Sandbox drafts. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a Forumshopping exercise and as Malcolmxl5 notes above, those discussions have been opened in appropriate places (as stated above) where I have already asked for a review of the closure. Around January 5, 2017 I again notified Buckshot that his his assertions and actions re my draft were without merit and his harassment would lead to the possibility of sanctions and my Ignoring All Rules. nevertheless I incorporated his suggestions.

I did IAR and restore following each questionable recent deletion because every assertion he has made in moving to deletion discussions is a blatant misrepresentation of facts which other editors have (unbelievably) echo. [9]. The IAR restorations were immediate followups to questionable deletions but Buckshots06s efforts to ban me from the topic have persisted long before my IAR restorations.[10] I have edited numerous pages that prove his SPA noticeboard assertion are not accurate and that he knows that assertion to be untrue. Baseless SPA accusations by Moe Epsilon were addressed here: [11]. I also edit Electronic music project, Mil history, and others and wrote a nice article on Beacham Theatre as is mentioned on my user page while I took a break from all of controversies I've written about- which Buckshot06 is suddenly and very weirdly fixated on. He stated his purpose was to put a summary on the main space and something about the units and had no further interest. Those summaries he state were his sole purpose in this subject exist on the main space already and have for some time.

As I stated above and will repeat here, this thread is about the constant misrepresentations by Buckshot06 in very recent discussion and noticeboards- including those listed above- resulting in deletions of my attempts to improve WP. Per his previous section this appears- at least partially- to be an immediate follow up to Buckshot06s actualized threat from April 2017 to come here over a prior content disputes and sourcing that he wanted to edit war over, appeared to have gotten got all wrong, wanted to avoid content dispute and still wants to battle over, followed by my April 2, 2017 willingness to also come here if that is this was the forum that he chose to explore his use of that source (plus a list of other sources). Link:[12] I hope this information clarifies rather than confuses.Johnvr4 (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Power~enwiki Please do not close my valid request for a closure review of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review DRV of JohnVR4 userspace Sandbox drafts unless a particular WP policy requires it. I went to DRV for specific reasons, brought up specific concerns in policy and provided more than adequate proof yet the DRV request was closed by ignoring all of my concerns with out even reading them. That closure without addressing any of those concerns is reason for the request for closure review. I ask that you please reopen the review request that you recently closed if/when possible. Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnvr4:--If you feel, that the true evidence that everyone is correct is adhering to your Supervalid beliefs and actions, I'm sorry to state that does not promise you a bright future on our site.And secondly, where this chain stops?You challenged the MfD at DrV.You are challenging the DrV at AN.Prob. iff the AN thread is let to run, a few days after it's clearly foreseeable close, you will be going to _____??I'm also genuinely concerned about the recreation of deleted and deletion-challenged material.That being said I am sorta neutral' about the invoking of ban/block hammer and will take the oppurtunity to sincerely request you to either leave the topic area or put a dead-stop to your disruptive antics.Winged Blades^Godric 09:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Winged Blades, I was hoping that I would be vindicated, my concerns would be validated, counter arguments would fall apart and be seen for what they were when actual facts were presented. I hoped that each valid concern that I raised in the DRV, and MfD closure would be reviewed since they were ignored in closing it (see comment below). I would hope the drafts would then be restored so I can finish developing them in my sandbox and moving material the does not fit out. Then Id like move the sandbox to my user space and then ask for further community review and publishing on the main space if or when it is deemed ready. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm involved (I closed the recent DRV he started) so I'll not voice an actual opinion here. But, based on what I've seen, Johnvr4 really does need to back away from flogging the Project Red Hat dead horse. It's obvious he's passionate about that subject, but the community has clearly spoken, and he needs to move on. I don't see any good that can come (either to himself, or to the encyclopedia) of him continuing to push his view of that topic. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roy, your actual opinion you've posted above is based solely on something you stated you ignored completely but you did note WP:STALE applied in closure so that's something. You've ignored my valid policy views and closed the DRV because you didn't want to read it. That closure has not yet been reviewed. How the consensus of the community was reached is just one of issues that you were expected to answer. That was why I came to DRV. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Correct me if I'm wrong, I've read through all the links that were provided above (one of them was a duplicate, FYI) but in a nutshell this is boiling down to:

Johnvr4 wants editors to help review the sources, not necessarily all of them but some critical ones.
Get back to him on what needs to be improved with regards to how the draft could be improved re sourcing and details.
Johnvr4 did not want content to be excised from their draft version. (Something I gathered by this statement I hear your concern and I understand it. I've simply asked you to look past that concern for the time being and discuss with me the other concerns like the primary sourcing and level of detail etc, from this thread.
Johnvr4 did not like that fact that an older article was being expanded, incorporating content from his draft. (This was discussed at length, quite vociferously)
Most critically, Johnvr4 did not want others messing with his draft.

Does this sum everything up? Blackmane (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for the most part and thank you Blackmane for taking the time to sort that out. The areas I gathered needing improvement (your #2) are at the end of that #3 thread link. That the Dec. version of the draft was too big was already understood by all (#1).

I would add that I wanted constructive criticisms and tagging of any problematic areas (your #1). I got mass excising (your #3), and being basically shut out of the topic/category (Article was revived a few times) and got what I believed were POV fork solutions instead of improvements to our main space (your#4). At that point I asked for certain editors not to "mess" with that sandbox (your#5).

Importantly, those areas needing improvement and those observations identified in those discussions were being addressed and incorporated into my sandbox (despite numerous assertions to the contrary). Was it a FAKE article, STALEDRAFT, abandoned or did it meet any of the requirements for deletion?

I am a still basically a rookie editor and not an administrator-please help me if I break etiquette or policy. There is a hurricane pending in the event I lose access to power or internet during discussion. Please ping me if a response or action is needed. I have a lot going on IRL. Thank you very much again, Johnvr4 (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot06 sure seems to have taken WP:INVOLVED actions but it is extremely hard to fight an Admin. Best to protect your self, family amd neighbors in real life. Come back and request a copy of your work be emailed to you. Legacypac (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot is involved as was explained to him by Nick-D in describing his own involvement nine months ago. That is a reason we are here at ANI.

Quote from User_talk:Nick-D#U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan.27s_southern_islands:

@Buckshot06: From looking at the article's talk page, it seems pretty clear that this is an editor conduct issue rather than a content issue. As it's a long-running issue, I'd suggest that you seek some form of admin intervention regarding John. Arguing about the article's content doesn't appear to be producing results, with material that was identified as problematic years ago and more recently continuing to be posted. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Thanks Nick.

What sort of action would you suggest? Do you believe you are 'involved', or can you yourself consider taking action? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, a block per WP:NOTHERE or similar given that John, unfortunately, doesn't seem interested in working collaboratively to develop neutral and appropriate encyclopedia articles. Given that I've commented a fair bit on this matter and when it was raised a few years ago I think that I would be 'involved' here. You may want to contact one or more of the admins who serve as coordinators for the military history project ahead of ANI and ask that they look into the matter: my reading is that the underlying issue here is - despite the walls of text - quite simple, especially given all the attempts to work with John by a range of excellent editors and could be handled by any uninvolved admin without a need to use ANI or similar. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

End quote. Apparently, there are or may be a bunch of administrators who are involved that they asked to look into the matter. I don't know. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal concerning JohnVR4

"Johnvr4 is topic banned from contributing to or discussing articles regarding either Japan or weapons, broadly construed, ~~anyway~~ anywhere on the English Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban to WP:AN after six months." (Corrected typo: Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Support NE Ent 19:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, assuming there will be no consensus for the block. I hope we can convince John to turn his energies to something he feels perhaps less strongly about. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.I do not understand this proposal at all given the assertions of Buckshot06 already being proven to be bogus. Can we determine the merit of arguments, restore the drafts, then review them to determine whether a topic ban is appropriate? Have I abused the system? Thank you Johnvr4 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

It does not matter unfortunately. Buckshot06 is an Admin, so unless you can present damning evidence of abusing their position they will not be sanctioned, and even then likely not. You are best served to drop the dispute and edit elsewhere for a while. Defining this topic your way is not worth getting blocked or topic banned over. Legacypac (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do have fairly damning evidence and have provided those links. I'd like the User space drafts restored right after exactly how and why they were deleted is explored and I want his harassment of me and of my submissions both past and future to end. I would like an agreement from him that that he will review the sources and refrain from fact-deficient assertions when editing this subject or in speaking to or about me. I'm not sure if that compromise can be enforced but that is my very reasonable proposal. If the issue is that two ANIs for similar reasons can't be open at once then place mine on hold. I don't understand the ANI policy but that section has relevant links for the ANI he opened which is slowly getting to the behavior that needs to be understood. (what or who is BRZ that suggested this proposal?) Johnvr4 (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnvr4: Put aside your belief in the correctness of your position for just a moment, and clear your mind. Then start at the top of the discussion, skip all of your own comments, and read only the comments by other editors. Do you get the sense that anyone involved in the discussion is supporting your position? I think that if you're honest with yourself, you will see that that doesn't appear to be the case. This is a good bit of WP:CLUE for you that continuing to advocate your position aggressively is unlikely to end up in a result you'll be happy with, and could very possibly result in a sanction placed on you. You have to judge whether it's worthwhile to pursue your goal considering those circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think every single editor would agree with me if they simply looked at the differences of User:Johnvr4/sandbox between Dec 2016 and it's deletion this week or the Afd version vs the Mfd versions. Buckshot06, Nick-D, and Moe won't ever agree with me again and many might tend to agree with them simply because they are usually highly wise, accurate, and reliable (I admit I would do that 9 times out of ten for that same reason in most cases) but if editors could please take look at those diffs, all of the assertions about my "preferred" version (vs the newer sources), not condensing material, not reducing scope, not improving, of not putting it on the main space, or of leaving it indefinitely would simply fall apart.

I'm not saying it's perfect by any stretch and it's not even ready for formal draft submission -but it is so close! It's already split into three separate parts for three WP articles and it covers both sides of all the complex issues and is consistent with 177 sources as opposed to the POV current Operation Red Hat that doesn't remotely properly cover the majority points of the 12 of the reference it has had since its recreation. I feel strongly that it simply should not be deleted and that deleting it would be an extreme disservice to the WP project. I just took a 5 month break from this topic and 1.5 hours after returning for a moment to add a new source that addressed Moe's previous concern, Buckshot06 nominates it for MfD with misrepresentations that would take any administrator about 45 seconds to disprove. A Tempundelete of my user spaces would also clear it up. Promptly. Johnvr4 (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I think every single editor would agree with me if..." So, you're not going to do as I suggested and evaluate as neutrally as possible what other editors have already said above. Instead, you're going to stick to your personal party line that you are right, and everyone else is wrong, and everyone else would agree with you if they would only think as you do. That's tautologically true, but I'm trying to point you to what is the practical reality here, which is that you are virtually alone, and no matter how many times you repeat your tropes, you're going to remain alone or heavily outnumbered. If you refuse to recognize that, then all I can say is that I hope you enjoy the sanction that is almost certain to be heading your way -- just don't say that you weren't warned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnvr4 Can I implore you to read BMK's wise words again and heed his advice? Admins can and have examined your most recent drafts, and nobody here is agreeing with you. It all works by consensus here, even if that consensus is, in your opinion, wrong - I've disagreed with consensus many times, but I have to accept it, and you have to accept it. Simply continuing to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong, and that everyone would see things your way if only... well, that's an approach that is guaranteed to fail. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Ken (and Boing!), However, I just took a 5 month break only to find myself challenging the MfD deletion of my User space draft and I am fairly certain it was not nominated or endorsed correctly. The main space article is simply a POV version that was opened by that editor literally during my discussions with him (and Nick) about improvements to my sand box draft. I've incorporated their suggestions in the deleted sandbox version over the last 5 months and the redevelopment was not complete. That is reality. It is undeniable. Assertions to the contrary are factually inaccurate in our present reality.

Ken, those assertions and other content disputes are why we are here and my frustration stems from arguing over content with an editor who wont review our reliable sources. Other commenting administrators (such as Mr rnddude) have confirmed my assessment (in at least one case to date) and any editor who looked at that would likely do the same.

"Admins can and have examined your most recent drafts," They have? Buckshot06 asserts that draft still it has not been improved nor condensed in scope and size and Nick-d says its POV and fails Verifiability. The deleted sandbox had Buckshot06 and Nick-Ds suggestions incorporated between Jan and May 2017. That is a primary reason why I feel their repeated assertions about that draft are so absurd. No one has seemed to even read what I've typed on noticeboards and deletion reviews and I highly doubt they took any time to look at the diffs of a deleted sandbox draft or the sources that used to support it. If they had there would be a lot of examples to support those assertions vs the sources that state what I submitted. If the draft was tempundelete-d during this discussion we could simply look right at the text and sources to see whether the assertions hold water. Johnvr4 (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review During sandbox draft content discussion between Buckshot06 and Nick-D and I : "I've changed my mind; I've taken the material, retained the material on the core Red Hat CW/BW storage-and-disposal-from-Okinawa-to-Johnson subject, and relaunched the Operation Red Hat article. It still needs a lot of cleanup, but this is an example of what a more focused article, drawn from your text, would start to look like. It is *only* about thing that can be referenced to be referring to anything labelled Red Hat, so please do not start adding other subjects to the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC) " Johnvr4 (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of Buckshot06's topic versions cover the entire subject and my draft was MfDed 1.5 hours after I added this source that redefines entirely his strong views on relevance to the core topic. New source added: "The report refers to the possibility that in terms of its timing and the location, moving the barrels of Agent Orange from Okinawa to Johnston Island was a part of Operation Red Hat. A statement from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 2009 referred to military herbicides having been stored in Okinawa during the period from August 1969 to March 1972 and later disposed of in Operation Red Hat. The relationship between Agent Orange and Operation Red Hat is indicated." Please explain. Johnvr4 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more try. Johnvr4, please read and seriously think about WP:DROPTHESTICK. The more you continue to hold on to your fixed position, the more it appears to others that you are fundamentally misaligned with core Wikipedian values, such as WP:CONSENSUS, and therefore the more likely it is that this discussion will result in a sanction for you, and that sanction will be harsher than it might have been if you had only allowed yourself to let things go instead of digging in your feet. Please understand, I'm not talking about right and wrong -- I haven't looked into the complexities of your situation seriously enough to make a judgment like that, and, in any case, this is just on online encyclopedia project, not the North Korean missile crisis -- I'm simply evaluating what's gone on here and the likely response to your intransigence. I think that you have to consider not what you believe to be right, and not what result you desire, but the probable result of this ongoing interaction, and decide if that result is worth your continuing to hold the line. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely hear and understand you Ken. I feel that consensus will be eventually be determined by the quality of the argument put forth but that I just haven't to date presented it in a fashion that can be overcome by a poll of other editors who do not have time to look into the merits of each assertion. It is too complex. I do understand that. I simply want the user space draft restored and have very valid policy reasons why that should have already happened. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, your choice. Good luck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support since a block is likely to fail, and since it is an undesirable outcome anyways. Maybe being topic banned for six months, John can clear his mind and just focus on other topics and helping there. If he is knowledgeable in any other topics whatsoever, he should be able to make positive contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia and let Japan/weapon-based topics go for a while. In the meantime, off of Wikipedia, maybe you can work on the articles on O.R.H. or related topics, personally. In some situations where I didn't want a public sandbox, I used a Word document and maintained wikitext and went from there. That way, John, you can work on bringing the articles up to publication with less conflict once you repeal the topic ban. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moe, I hope you saw my apology above for my misstatement involving you and thanks for the suggestion. I thought that was what I was accomplishing in user space and that the improvements in my sandbox would speak for themselves. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support As second-preferred option after a block. As noted in my comments above, Johnvr4's editing on these topics does not meet a range of key Wikipedia standards, including WP:V and WP:NPOV, and attempts by multiple editors to provide advice to address this issue have not been successful. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

There is zero evidence to support Nick-D's statement and much to disprove it. Nick-D was asked here for one example of what he has asserted and couldn't provide one.

Further, Nick-D and involved editor, admitted that the much older Dec. version of my sandbox was improved and he told that to Buckshot06, (another involved editor), who seemed to be abusing his discretion at that time. "... I'm not sure if I'm following the above discussion, but It would be best to not use the 2013-era text given John's comments on how he's improved upon it and sought to address the concerns over sourcing, etc, raised in the AfD. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)"

I had improved the sandbox while incorporating their suggestions between Jan. and Mar. which even Buckshot06 admitted elsewhere (at least twice). Yet Buckshot06s asserted at MfD just 1.5 hours after my last edit, that the draft was without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD and Nick-D echoed his statement: "As the material is not being actively edited to address the concerns raised, it should be deleted. ... Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)"

It seems clear that both editors knew full well that their assertions at WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat, here, and other place sounded untrue when they wrote them. Their dubious statements have been echoed by several other editors. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnvr4: Please stop outdenting every time you respond to something. The proper procedure is to add one more tab (i.e. one more colon, with a bullet counting as a colon) than the comment you're responding to. I've had to fix almost every response of yours here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnvr4: Your conviction that everyone will agree with you if only you can find the right way to present your case is causing you to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion. Please stop - this is a community discussion, and not every comment requires a response from you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support since he will not take good advice. Legacypac (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Nick-D. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 06:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support (but fix the "anyway" typo to "anywhere"): There is clearly a serious problem here, but it's very topical, and we don't block people for topic-limited things, especially when the behavior is very long-term (i.e., even a lengthy block would likely result in resumption of the behavior when the block expired). An indefinite block could be considered, but I don't see sufficient evidence that the problem rises to that level. This is a content and PoV dispute about a particular subject area, so removing the editor from discussion and editing about that should fix it. If not, we'll know soon enough. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing administrator: This is an active and continuing issue and does require resolution. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban proposal for Qewr4231

I'd like to propose a topic ban for editor Qewr4231 on anything related to Kip McKean, the International Christian Church and the International Churches of Christ. Editor is a self-described former member of the church, he obviously had a painful time, but unfortunately he has been using Wikipedia talk pages for the better part of a decade as a soapbox for venting about the church and what he describes as its cultish practices. This goes back to 2009. After years of this behavior and years of being asked not to soapbox, and subsequently three blocks for this behavior in 2015, the editor still finds opportunities to dump preachy screeds like this and this today. He often disappears for long stretches of time, sometimes six months or more, (so long-term blocking is probably not terribly effective) and then returns with the same behavior. It really becomes a timesuck for the two editors who are actively trying to maintain these articles, JamieBrown2011 and Coachbricewilliams28.

The previous blocks have obvious been unhelpful, but I'm not aware of the editor having problems at any other articles, so I think the topic ban would perhaps be a more humane way to approach this. I don't get the sense Qewr4231 is a bad fella, but this is an area that is especially prickly to him, and I think he needs an external system to help him with self-control. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I second this, greatly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachbricewilliams28 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban. Despite blocks of increasing lengths, Qewr4231 has been unable to avoid soapboxing and advocacy regarding this specific group of articles. A topic ban will set a clear boundary and allow the editor to contribute productively to articles on unrelated topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban. I agree. He is not a bad guy, so it shouldn't extend beyond what you are suggesting, but he clearly has an axe to grind. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some International Church of Christ members, Kip Mckean himself, and International Christian Church members are editing these pages and putting a pro-ICOC, pro-ICC, pro-Kip Mckean stance on the articles. I know for a fact that some of the information in the articles is incorrect, but I get blasted every time I say that the information is incorrect. Any negative material on Kip Mckean, the ICOC, and the ICC seems to get blocked and discussed away. There are hundreds of websites, YouTube videos, and ministers outside of the ICOC and ICC that refer to them as cults; however, editors seem to want to block all of this information. I think that people, possible ICOC and ICC members are trying to block true information about the ICOC and ICC from being posted on Wikipedia. I think that some editors are bullying me. Qewr4231 (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that editors such as JamieBrown2011, Cyphoidbomb, and CoachBriceWilliams28 are bullying me over the International Churches of Christ, International Christian Churches, and Kip Mckean pages. The pages themselves sound like advertisements for these people/organizations. I know that some of the information contained in those articles is not true because I am a former member of the International Chruches of Christ. I feel that these and other editors are blocking information about the International Churches of Christ, the International Christian Churches, and Kip Mckean. I also think that the International Churches of Christ page, the International Christian Churches page, and the Kip Mckean page should be deleted from Wikipedia as these are not neutral topics. Sorry, I'm not that great of an internet user and I don't know how to link to all of the different Wikipedia rule pages. Qewr4231 (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Q, the issue is that your experiences have given you tunnel vision preventing you from seeing the truth behind your circumstances. Your rigid , religious sentimentality has seemingly warped your perception of reality....Again, I would NEVER have an issue with your posts IF what you said was true. I don't honestly care about all this POV talk regarding you; it's merely the accuracy. Based on all my research, things are radically different in both churches you seem to soapbox on plus Thomas (aka Kip) is on record refuting and disproving majority of the very things you say fairly conclusively even for a no non sense guy like me. I completely understand that you feel the overwhelming videos and blogs in existence give you credibility HOWEVER this is an academic forum. If someone FEELS a certain way, they can't just rewrite wiki based on their emotions. That is the opposite of science and academia. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again with the bullying. How do you know everything you say is true and everything I say is false? I have evidence that proves certain things about Kip Mckean, the ICOC, and the ICC; however every time I try to show that evidence on Wikipedia other editors dismiss it as soapboxing. Stop bullying me. Wikipedia is not an academic resource. I am in a doctoral program at a university and Wikipedia is not accepted as an academic resource. It is not accepted as a resource at all. Qewr4231 (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I said is true. Don't call me a liar I lived the ICOC and experienced it for five years. I knew kip Mckean personally. I knew his wife personally. I know things about them that you don't even know. Qewr4231 (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs. I suggest you drop it, or you'll just end up indefinitely blocked. — nihlus kryik (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support TBAN. Whatever secrets Qewr4231 knows, if they haven't been published in a reliable source, they're likely not appropriate material for Wikipedia. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- That said, I'm very concerned about the content on International Christian Church (not to be confused with International Churches of Christ which has a longer history and larger membership) and am considering AfD on that article if I cannot find reliable and independent secondary references. I will discuss my content concerns on the talk page. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki The International Christian Church has 80 churches with ~5,300 members. The previous conclusion to the AFD proposal was "keep" because this is a rapidly growing group formed ~2 years post International Churches of Christ implosion. I passively support this idea based on the idea that independent sources are few and far between. I resist this idea because what if in 10 more years they are @10,000 members with 200 churches? Surely we can't ignore their existance just because their primary citations come from their own publishing affiliate. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coachbicewilliams28 Why do you care so much about the ICC and whether or not the ICC grows and expands? I'm not ignoring them. What I am saying is this: The ICC is not worthy of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia should contain factual information instead of controversial material that can't be substantiated with facts Qewr4231 (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support TBAN While I am somewhat sympathetic to this user's motivations, I think he/she needs to realize that Wikipedia editing privileges are for helping to build the encyclopedia. A user who hasn't made a single mainspace edit in three years should not be using talk pages as soapboxes, and the above comments are enough to convince me that, whether Qewr4231 is right or not, he/she should let cooler heads solve the problems with the articles. If it was really only undeclared COISPAs shooting Qewr4231 down on the talk pages, they would be the ones getting reported here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri 88 How does supporting articles on controversial organizations that have very little factual evidence support Wikipedia and help build up Wikipedia? One of the reasons that Wikipedia is not accepted as an academic source at almost every university is that Wikipedia has tons of pages on controversial topics created by editors that are either pro or con that topic. And these controversial topics have little to no real evidence to back them up. Is it good that most of the information on the ICOC comes from their own websites and sources? What if I started a company or organization, created a Wikipedia article, and then sourced it with information from mostly my organization's website? Would that be a neutral article or would I be advertising my organization? Qewr4231 (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No opinion on the ban, but the articles seem to need some tone cleanup and maybe more (Wikipedia shouldn't be talking about "bitterness in his heart" in its own voice), and I confess to some curiosity about a church that calls itself the Sold-out Discipling Movement, or (wait for it...) SODM. Hmmmmmm. E Eng 03:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EEng#s At one point I was looking for a source for this SODM name origin. The best I found was a video clip on youtube explaining how a detractor from the International Churches of Christ used it as an insult and the leadership of the International Christian Church believed it to be clever. The name meaning is merely to say, they believe in mentoring one another for accountability & selling out their personal dreams in life for the cause of their savior. Not unheard of. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's like when the First Unitarian Church of Berkeley moved to the adjacent town of Kensington, but elected not to rename themselves the First Unitarian Church of Kensington. (Think about it.) E Eng 14:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support the ban. Qewr4231 (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<REDACTED BY Hijiri88.> Qewr4231 (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Qewr4231: You are entitled to your own religious beliefs about who is going to heaven and who is going to hell, but you are not allowed attack named living people by calling them "liars", "frauds" and the like unless you have a reliable source. Generally speaking, calling a self-identified Christian "not a Christian" or "not a real Christian" is also a no-no. WP:BLP applies to this page as well as the article space. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote, much like your comment above, don't matter. You're only digging the hole deeper. In fact, that latest comment is probably enough to get you banned outright. So... good job shooting yourself in the foot. --Tarage (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor looks like he's shooting himself, should we contact WP:EMERGENCY? E Eng 03:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarage Thanks I'm so glad that my vote and my comment doesn't matter (sarcasm). Is Wikipedia a club that only some people are privy to? Do you blacklist people that dont' conform to your opinion(s)? Wikipedia is not an academic source. Wikipedia is not accepted at any university as an academic source. Up until now I have never criticized Wikipedia. I am just saying that Wikipedia doesn't have correct information on three of its pages: ICOC, ICC, Kip Mckean. Qewr4231 (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I don't care. Qewr4231 (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's the door. --Tarage (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qewr, I think I made it clear that I was not proposing a total editing ban at Wikipedia, rather a ban over topics specifically related to Kip McKean and his churches. Your continued rants here are not helping your cause, and your attempts to portray yourself as a victim of bullying are grossly disrespectful to people who endure actual bullying. You've been approached relatively politely for years and you've not made any material changes to your own behavior. Nobody's ever said you can't think, feel, or exist, only that you can't use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I'm very sorry that you had a shitty experience at this church, and I do feel for you, but Wikipedia is simply not the place to work out these issues. And I'll say it again in case you missed it: I don't think you're a bad fella, but you seem to be incapable of participating in this area in a constructive fashion. If you want to participate in a less controversial area like weightlifting, I've no interest in getting in your way. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. I'm not saying Qewr4231 is perfect, but I do not see large scale disruption by this editor. They are not edit warring article space. They are making suggestions on Talk that have some value. It is Coachbricewilliams28 who appears to be struggling most with Wikipedia norms, like RS. Bondegezou (talk) 07:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To expand, Hijiri88 suggests abopingve that, "A user who hasn't made a single mainspace edit in three years should not be using talk pages as soapboxes". However, Qewr4231 said here that they feel they have a conflict of interest, so they refrain from editing the article directly and stick to Talk. That's what we ask people to do: Qewr4231's avoidance of mainspace around these articles is not a failing. Instead, Qewr4231 is making Talk page edits that appear to me to be a genuine attempt to improve the quality of Wikipedia. Here are some of their more recent edits: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Those all look OK to me, attempts to help and appropriate Talk page chat, with consideration given to reliable sources. Constructive edits, in other words.

Qewr4231 did make this edit recently that might be considered soapboxing. It was moving away from useful Talk page discussion into a forum-style discussion, but it's hardly the greatest Wikipedia sin ever. Qewr4231 is generally seeking to work within Wikipedia rules and is not, as some have suggested above, seeking to insert information based on personal experience into article space.

Meanwhile, Talk:International_Christian_Church#Moving_Forward shows that Coachbricewilliams28 has been taking a while to understand WP:RS and WP:NPOV, so describing them as an editor who is "actively trying to maintain these articles", as Cyphoidbomb does above, is not quite the wording I'd use.

So, I think a topic ban is over the top. It would be advisable for several editors to take a break from these pages and focus their efforts elsewhere for a while. I am not surprised that Qewr4231 feels bullied and I hope s/he can move beyond this incident. I entirely support Hijiri 88's point below: what these articles need most is more eyes on them to improve them. Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: I appreciate contrary perspective on the matter and someone acting as advocate for Qewr4231. What do you propose as an alternative to topic ban? No sanction and we just delete any posts that veer off topic? This isn't a sarcastic question, I'm genuinely curious what you think would be helpful. Further, I would be fine with dropping the topic ban proposal and removing the three articles from my own watchlist if several of you want to pick up the management per Hijiri88's suggestion below. I have zero interest in this subject. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose merely being polite, but ignoring comments that are less helpful. I see you deleted Qewr4231's soapbox-y comment. Fine: problem solved. Qewr4231 didn't dispute that act, as far as I can see. So where's the problem? I wish all problems on Wikipedia were so easily ignorable: there's no edit-warring here, no substantial uncivility. I don't see why everyone can't just continue on as they are doing. Qewr4231 (in the last couple of years) is otherwise making some useful suggestions for the articles: if you don't find them useful, leave them. If you do, act on them. If there are occasional "posts that veer off topic", delete them, or hide them, or just leave them alone. Bondegezou (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, my statement above about the lack of mainspace edits was about Qewr's apparent general lack of interest in building an encyclopedia, not about his voluntarily refraining from editing the articles on topics in which he has a COI. Actually, I find that latter claim somewhat dubious -- if he was only not editing those artixles because of his COI, that wouldn't explain why he has not edited any articles in several years. Wikipedia editing privileges exist for the purpose of building the encyclopedia, and when someone refuses to use them for anything other than soapboxing, the typical approach is to sanction them in some manner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. I looked through a fair number of Qewr's edits over the last two years. I would only call one or maybe two of them soapboxing. The vast majority appear genuine attempts to improve the articles concerned. Occasional off-purpose posts to a Talk page should not get someone topic banned. Bondegezou (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bondegezou Admittedly, my WP:RS struggles have been due to the lack of 3rd party content on the subject. The citations used historically on the ICC wiki have been either from their own nascent publishing arm, the Icoc themselves or a blog from a former member. My casual suggestion within the talk was to utilize the self published sources so long as it is reasonable to conclude their accuracy. Ie: Church demographics. As for the WP:NPOV I hopefully fixed that by observing the tone and style of other writers. Just a rookie mistake. I have no interest in a POV, merely accuracy. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coachbricewilliams: If what you are saying is accurate, then the ICC article should be deleted. Topics that have not received sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources do not get articles on Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repinging User:Coachbricewilliams28 after botched attempt above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hijiri88 That is interesting. Of the 43 citations NOT EVEN ONE is sourced by someone who isn't staff of the Icoc or Icc. That doesn't make the information inaccurate, but does this TRULY violate a standard of Wiki? I ask because now the Icoc page is HIGHLY suspect as well. The Icc has gone from a splinter group in a living room to 5,300 people in 10 years. That's notable to have a wiki but all sources are 1 dimensional. Thoughts? Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for the articles and the other SPAs/near-SPAs on the other "side"...

I notice several impartial observers, myself included, are pointing to the problematic nature of one or two of the articles in question, and it might be worth noting that one of the users User:Cyphoidbomb pinged initially is an SPA, and the other is a near-SPA (with over half his mainspace edits and almost 90% of his talk edits to the same article). Whether or not Qewr is TBANned, it might worth putting more eyes on the articles themselves as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me (why would there be?). It's definitely an area that needs more eyes. I asked WikiProject Christianity to help out a couple of years ago to little avail. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to quote the coach here - "While I have experience in both the ICOC and the partially accurate splinter church in discussion (ICC)" from the Talk page. A topic ban for Qewr4231, Who has never edited the article, is in sledgehammer and nut territory. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog: I appreciate the perspective. As I noted to Bondegezou in the subsection above, I'm fine with dropping the TBAN proposal and withdraw from watching those articles, if other people want to pick up the slack. This is an issue though that has been going on for many years and though it's gotten less frequent, it's still a needless distraction. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog: I don't know if "he's never edited the articles -- we can't TBAN him" is the right way of looking at the problem. He's been engaging in gross violation of the BLP violation in this discussion, and BLP definitely applies to the talk space as well. Aside from a TBAN, what else would you propose to make the disruption stop? A block? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all----> Just to be clear, I've never been a member of that church. They were a force on my old university though. I def saw their red tshirts from time to time. That + recent research is my "experience." Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coachbricewilliams28: Well, have you considered editing some Wikipedia articles on other topic areas? It doesn't look good when your only contributions are related to a conservative religious group and we're being told that they are disproportionately positive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would love to. I was using this page as more of a sandbox because I found the rules initially confusing. I do plan on staying in the realm of theology and kinesiology though. Great suggestion. I'll begin to venture out. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'll forgive me for being skeptical. You've had an account for almost a year, which really akes it look like if you wanted to edit other topic areas you would have done so already. But good luck, anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coachbricewilliams28 (talk Count me as another rather skeptical observer, A SPA editor who has inside knowledge of ex-members and their motives for writing criticisms and leaving the church!!! JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban - Per Cullen328. Miles Edgeworth ^Objection! 03:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear I have edited other articles. I have edited the America's Test Kitchen page and the Cook's Country page and/or made suggestions to those pages on the talk pages. Anyway, I don't know why Wikipedia cares so much about the International Churches of Christ, the International Christ Church, or Kip Mckean. There isn't enough factual information on the International Churches of Christ, the International Christ Church, or Kip Mckean to really state what is fact and what is not fact. Ex-members know what the truth about Kip Mckean's movements is. There are hundreds if not thousands of Christian ministers, YouTube videos, and ex-members claiming Kip Mckean's organizations to be pyramid schemes and cults. How do you think Kip Mckean got rich? How do you think Kip Mckean became a millionaire? He's been doing his thing for a long time. Back in the 60s or 70s Kip Mckean was expelled from the traditional Church of Christ for doing his thing. And, no, this is not soap boxing. I'm merely pointing out that the ICOC, ICC, and Kip Mckean articles lack factual information; truth. I will list some of those sources that are not accepted by Wikipedia that point to the ICOC, ICC, and Kip Mckean having less than scrupulous practices.

https://www.gotquestions.org/International-Church-of-Christ.html http://www.reveal.org/library/activism/srausch-warning.html http://www.cultwatch.com/icc.html https://carm.org/international-church-christ-cult https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aITLu2hvwlo (This one is a Fox new report on the ICOC)

Why does a simple Google search bring up hundreds of websites that talk about the ICOC being a cult? Why would an encyclopedia even publish an article on an organization that hundreds of websites are calling a cult? Shouldn't encyclopedias stick to factual things and not controversial groups? How can you say that any article is neutral the subject is so controversial? The ICOC, ICC, and Kip Mckean pages should be deleted in my opinion. That's the problem with Wikipedia: Anyone can create an article on anything that has no facts to substantiate it. Qewr4231 (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last thing I will post here: In order for Wikipedia to be considered a bonafide academic source; a factual source, Wikipedia itself needs a cleanup of hundreds of articles on controversial topics that have no real facts substantiating/sourcing them. Controversial topics that don't have a lot of good sources shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia should they? Qewr4231 (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qewr4231 I have a few issues with your position above if I may play devil's advocate. #1- Got Questions, Reveal, Cultwatch, Carm, etc are NOT an unbiased series of sources. Those websites are ALL anti-baptismal regeneration so of course they would have harsh things to say about a restorationist church. The Icoc is included in that spectrum. They are a firm discipling church which to a prideful person who hates being called to a standard as strict as the Bible may find "controlling." Again, I've never been to their church, but I see how that is possible to FEEL much like a outgoing , vocal, standard setting COACH might cause as well. haha #2- That doesn't mean they should be left off wiki IMO, it just means the "controversies" should be it's own consolidated section as I did once a while back in reverted edit. While their opinions are merely based off sentimentality and wavering convictions on certain topics, I do not believe they should be dismissed within an article where all 43 sources are written by a biased source. #3- Again, as Cyphoidbomb admonished you on already "There are plenty of articles at Wikipedia that cause strife. Wikipedia doesn't censor articles solely because they cause strife. Ever edited in anything related to Israel, Palestine, India or Pakistan? Gamergate? That's where you'll find strife." I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not this wiki page stays or goes, but something needs to be decided due to those 43 sources. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban I've seen this subject arise several times, and it's always been the result of problematic editing by Qewr4231. Minus his editing, I doubt that we'd see much of any disruption in this area. The only solid alternative is a block, but the ban will permit constructive editing in other fields. Coachbricewilliams28's words make me suspect, however, that he sees this as a way to get rid of opposition — They are a firm discipling church which to a prideful person who hates being called to a standard as strict as the Bible may find "controlling" is hardly the way to characterise either other editors or our sources. Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend Forgive me if my personal religious convictions came out in that last reply. It wasn't at him or anyone specific. Merely a generalization of people who claim Christ but cherry pick his teachings when he spoke in an all or nothing manner frequently. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Some other editors have opposed the proposal, and their thoughts have given me pause. I'm open to open to the possibility that I'm being hypersensitive to the issue, and that maybe the behavior is not severe enough to warrant a topic ban? It's obviously a powderkeg issue for him, when even in the ANI, he continues to soapbox [24][25]. As a contrary argument, he keeps citing poor sources like Cultwatch to support the "cult" claims, but then wants to lecture us about Wikipedia not being a sufficient academic resource for his doctorate program. I can't explain the disparity in logic except "emotion emotion emotion". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, then I notice that he's campaigning for deletion of articles that have caused him pain. [26][27][28] - I'll note that the latter might be a legitimate deletion candidate for lack of GNG establishment, but the other two I'm skeptical about. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not someone who's here to build an encyclopedia: it's someone who's here for promotion. Not ordinary promotion ("topic X is worth checking into!") but negative promotion ("topic X is worth staying away from!"), and that's still promotion — and over a period of years, no less. The only reason I'm not advocating a siteban is that I have no evidence of him disrupting anything that's unrelated to this topic; if he wants to edit elsewhere, that's fine. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 nominated one of these articles for deletion and Qewr4231 supported that on the AfD in a normal manner. Qewr4231 then also suggested on the Talk pages of the other two articles that they should also be deleted: the articles are rather similar, so there's a prima facie case that if one is up for deletion, it is not unreasonable to question whether the others should be too. Cyphoidbomb, for you to describe that as "campaigning for deletion of articles that have caused him pain" seems to me to be unhelpful language that exaggerates the situation.

Equally, Cyphoidbomb, complaining someone is being emotional when you've dragged them to AN/I seems a bit silly to me. Being emotional is quite common when someone escalates the situation to AN/I! I don't see behaviour that required administrator intervention in the first place. I suspect if everyone chilled out to begin with, then there would be a lot less emotion now!

Nyttend, you talk about problems over a "period of years", but Qewr4231 has changed his/her behaviour. S/he's not edit-warring, s/he's keeping to Talk pages. I've just looked at his/her edits over the last 18 months or so. In that period, the main problematic editing has come from elsewhere. The articles' problems today are not because of Qewr4231. Bondegezou (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: Although I appreciate the contrary opinions, I can't help but infer that you're misinterpreting the core of the complaint and the longevity, though I applaud the good faith you're assuming.

The user was brought here for persistent talk page soapboxing against Kip McKean and related churches, not for edit-warring. The behavior has not changed. Soapboxing is a contravention of community guidelines, because it is a timesuck for editors to trudge through provocative drivel in search of constructive ideas.
I don't think I'm wrong for describing the behavior as emotional. He's campaigned for years for McKean's organizations to be labeled "cults" and voted for article deletion with no policy/guideline-based rationale [29][30], rather because Kip McKean is a "a liar", a "fraud", an "all-around bad person" and because "These are controversial topics that are causing strife here at Wikipedia".
Qewr4231 basically published Kip McKean's address to make some abstruse implication that McKean lives large and congregants were being fleeced out of his $3000/month fee bill. Rational?
Paranoid accusations that because I redacted Qewr's copyright violation, I must be pro-Kip McKean. That's not a rational response, that's an emotional response. And I'm not describing this stuff as emotion to denigrate him, I'm pointing it out to illustrate that it is difficult for him to participate constructively in this area because of his strong feelings against this subject. His version of neutral wants a "cult" label.

Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your latter two examples are from 2014-5 and don't seem relevant now. Lots of people call McKean's organisations "cults", so merely doing the same on a Talk page is not proof of NPOV violation. If voting for article deletion without a rationale got you banned, Wikipedia would lose 25% of its editors. Some of Qewr4231's recent edits have not been helpful, but I remain of the opinion that problems are being overstated. Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So Moving Forward

It seems like Qewr4231 is being generally recognized as passively inappropriate at times, but not violating anything in a manner of being tbanned. As long as more eyes are on this article to prevent personal flavors of neutrality from oozing in, the majority will not care. That being said, how to we reconcile that ALL 43 citations are authored by either the church itself or the Icoc? Is this appropriate for discussion here? Just for kicks, I looked at the Icoc citation area. Same issue. ~8 +/- were non-church affiliate publishings which is better but there are still 87 total. I suppose this is a norm on Wiki? I have a few thoughts on article improvement I'll carry over the the talk page if desired. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more appropriate to discuss these matters on the relevant Talk pages. Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. Let's move this convo back home. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye. I'm not editing any wikipedia talk page or article pages ever again. This is the last post you will ever read from me. Qewr4231 (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent blanking of politically themed content despite numerous warnings

This editor is, in spite of warnings, persistently and disruptively adding uncited content removing content from politically categorized articles as shown

here
here
here in which the edit summary amazingly simply reads blanked the page
and here

to name a few. The editor has been warned by user:DrFleischman, user:Bishonen, user:General_Ization and myself as shown here after having received guidance on several occasions from other editors who were following guidelines and being polite. At the very least this editor needs to receive firmer caution that we have editorial policies and standards for interaction with other editors. I don't think this editor should be allowed to comment on the talk pages or make contributions to articles about politics. Edaham (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edaham, I agree about the disruptive editing, but the user hasn't AFAICS done anything wrong after my warning, so I'd prefer to wait and see. Bishonen | talk 10:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

OK it could be a time zone issue or me looking at the times of the warnings being issued rather than the actual edits. Apologies if this was an inappropriately filed ANI report, hopefully there's not a problem with bringing attention to a page with that many warnings on it. Edaham (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, Edaham, and thank you for watching out for disruptive editing. The way the user removes all warnings without response, and without so far having changed their ways, isn't exactly promising. However, since I warned them explicitly that there might be a block coming their way in case of further disruption, there's nothing more to be done right now. Also, Doug Weller has given them a discretionary sanctions alert for American politics. Bishonen | talk 14:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

(uninvolved) I was remarkably pinged because of a booboo on the filer's end (Which they thankfully fixed). Anyways, with regards to the "Blanked the page" one, I'd like to point out that that edit summary was an automatic edit summary, not written by the user. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you live and learn. I've never blanked an entire page before and didn't know about this automatic summary Edaham (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perusing user Edaham's half-year-long edit summary history, it's clear that he's (1) not a newbie, but an experienced user with a new name or pseudonym; and (2) primarily himself concerned with political controversy.

He seems to be using this complaint to address a content dispute. I suggest immediate closure due to lack of cause, along with a WP:BOOMERANG warning, and the advice to learn only bring properly formatted complaints against named parties.

Indeed, I am here only because I, like User:K6ka, was pinged as having been mentioned, while I was not mentioned in this complaint, and have never been involved with Edaham or any of the articles he deals with--i.e., my time's been wasted over a tissy. μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goguryeo: Requesting quick assistance

Richeaglenoble (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked per this discussion. —SpacemanSpiff 12:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Richeaglenoble (talk · contribs)

Requesting quick assistance as I am unable to implement action due to being involved. This is a possible case of WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR (evident through these comments: 1 2), please take a look at the revision history of the page starting from 08:44, 11 September 2017‎. For additional reading (not very long), User talk:Richeaglenoble contains everything. Alex Shih ^Talk 10:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfair.I uploded my picture legitimately.I took the picture from National meseum of Korea.Alex shin just hate to call Goguryeo as empire.Koreans call goguryeo as "empire" commonly.I hope Alex shin loves korean history.Richeaglenoble (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is the standard--uninvolved/independent sources, not self-claims of the subject of an article or self-claims to have unpublished inside knowledge. Comment on the content, not the editor. DMacks (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support an indefinite CIR block until REN recognizes the relevant Wikipedia policies. The above comment that completely misses the point is apparently characteristic, looking at his recent edit summaries. Either way, he's made four reverts in less than three hours, so should definitely be blocked to prevent more edit-warring in the immediate future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the editor has clearly been logging out to edit-war at the Yuan Dynasty and Han Chinese articles.[31][32] Clearly this is another anti-Chinese Korean nationalist SPA, most likely somebody's sock, and the focus on articles on the Han Chinese ethnicity and how they supposedly miscegenated with Mongols makes this look like another really ugly/racist "pure or mixed blood" affair. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page the user has agreed to go looking for sources, but I really don't trust him. The fact that he has now essentially admitted he didn't have sources already is telling, and I see no reason to believe he won't twist any sources he finds to agree with what he already wants to write. He also still hasn't self-reverted, even though he admitted he did not have a source, nor apologized for any of the other tendentious aspects of his editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would another admin please take a look at the page. Many thanks. Alex Shih ^Talk 07:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The disruption on the article has continued, including poor grammar/spelling and misrepresentation of sources (exactly as I predicted, he read the sources as saying exactly what he already wanted to write). Also worth noting that of his three image uploads, one is a clear COPYVIO (he calls it his "own work" despite admitting in the same edit to have scanned it from a government textbook), and the other two are quite possibly in violation of the relevant museum's rules, if the photo was even taken by REN, which I find questionable -- I'm not an expert, but doesn't the texture of the background look like a scanned image from a book more than an original photograph of a three-dimensional object? And then there's the edit-warring -- he made his sixth revert just over 24 hours after his first. Has this user made a single edit to the encyclopedia that isn't a liability? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User: Diannaa, User:Primefac: Thank you for dealing with those "Goguryeo empire crown" images (no idea if you saw my above comment to the effect that they were probably copyvios), but could you take a look at the rest of this thread? The editor has been violating copyrights all over the place (on ja.wiki, even though he claims more proficiency in Japanese than English, he copy-pasted a large chunk of text from a newspaper article last week). It's clearly not just a language issue: the editor simply does not understand copyright, and unless someone monitors all his edits to make sure he doesn't do the same thing again, I worry a block might be the only way. (It may be moot, of course, if it turns out he's been socking and all his accounts get blocked for that reason. But I'm not holding my breath on that SPI getting addressed any time soon with how long my other "recent" SPI filing is taking.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Astonishingly, the deleted copyrighted image has just been re-added. Alex Shih ^Talk 08:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He just keeps shooting himself in the foot. And I'm not even talking about what Alex mentioned above. Apparently he thinks that admins of Korean and possibly Chinese ethnic background will be more sympathetic to his cause. Or something -- perhaps he thinks that westerners "don't get it". Or perhaps just non-Koreans -- I'd say there's a 90% chance he thinks I'm Japanese. Google Translate some of the shit he's been posting over the last few hours. Someone should just put him out of his misery already. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this thread regarding the crown images (and if anything happens because of it), I'd be willing to AGF, but this discussion makes it sound like it's just one in a long serious of copyright violations. Their IDHT attitude doesn't help things either. No opinions at this moment on a block, but they certainly seem to be aiming for one. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I'm not sure if you read Chinese or Korean. My Korean is non-existent and my Chinese isn't much better. But I can still tell that the story REN told you doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny. To summarize my long reply to REN on your talk page: The photos on that blog he linked were probably taken with several different cameras, quite possibly over a period of decades, and at least two of them (including the one under discussion here) were clearly scanned from a book or pamphlet, intended for an audience of mainland Chinese readers, where the blog is clearly meant for a Korean readership. It's still theoretically possible that REN is the one who owns the photos, but why would he put a scan of a book with text in a different language on his blog if he had the original photo? And he also claimed on your talk page to have taken the photo in 2010, but the blog in question was posted in 2008. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I don't have any AGF to give (DGAAGF?). Primefac (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IDHT/CIR/COPYVIO continues I know it's not in itself a sanctionable action on here, but it does bear on whether this user is either incapable or unwilling to learn: his most recent edits on any Wikimedia project consisted of him describing his copy-pasting of about 80% of a newspaper article onto ja.wiki without giving any kind of inline indication that the text is a quote as It's quoting from the article, and has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, is anyone going to deal with this?

The editor has been quite open about his not trusting "Chinese administrators" (an unambiguous personal attack -- derogatory phrases based on race, [...] ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors -- against Alex Shih and arguably against plenty of other editors), has repeatedly violated copyright, refused to listen when copyright was repeatedly explained to him, in one case clearly lied about having taken one of the photos himself, and is apparently also socking (he obviously created two accounts at the same time and the first action of both accounts was to take steps to get around page protection).

Any one of these violations would be enough to justify an immediate indefinite block by itself, and in combination they basically leave no alternative.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would support an indefinite block having thought about this for a couple of days. Blackmane (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I too would support an indef block, based on the evidence presented in the above threads. It's a snake pit of problems, pointing to WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA, and a good helping of WP:CIR to add to the mix. Irondome (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support indefinite block. I don't see an alternative, with such a combination of serious issues and an unwillingness/inability to change. -- Begoon 05:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for reviewing the block of a disruptive user

Per consensus here, I'm removing the NPP and autopatrolled flags from Anoptimistix. Otherwise, I don't think there's a lot to do here. GoldenRing (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I request all admins to take a look at the User:Umair Aj. The User is been currently blocked for couple of weeks for sheer disruptive editing. The blocking administrator was himself Shocked to see the disruptive and malicious editing of the user [33]. From the past record of the user it is also proved that the user is a proven master sock, and the two sockpuppets of the user has been indefinitely blocked [34]. The user was blocked for sockpuppetry for a week, after getting unblocked continued their disruptive editing and now is again blocked for two weeks, with a final warning of an indefinite block. It is clear from the users history their intention is to create disruption through their malicious editing, only to get away from scrutiny welcomes new users through twinkle. I think as soon as this block will expiry the user will again create disruption. Anoptimistix (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anoptimistix: So... you came here just to badmouth someone who is blocked and can't defend themselves? Classy. Do you have any evidence that they are evading their block? The SPI archive you link appears to show one instance of sockpuppetry from two years ago, and the live SPI shows you making an accusation you have been unable or unwilling to substantiate in more than three weeks, and one other account being CU-blocked for technical reasons beyond my comprehension and similarly failing to enable email to discuss with the blocking admin. Unless UA has done something since his block to justify upping to indef ... well, it looks like you are more unhappy with User:Swarm's choosing not to indef off the bat than anything else, which means ... well, if this is really about Swarm, you probably should have notified them. Unless that is what your email two days ago was about. You are not going to get "all admins" to do anything about this if you have been unable to convince the blocking admin to reconsider their own decision. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time either, and I should warn Anoptimistix that if this behavior continues then they are just as likely to be blocked. They sent a similar canvassing email to me because I'm "from India like me". I did not reply to the email but notified via edit summary that I thought both their edits were problematic and COIN or ANI will soon deal with them both and I had no interest in getting involved. Both editors have unclean hands here, targeting each other and the articles created definitely need a look-in by regulars at COIN and/or some extra love at AfD. The behavioral problems stem from that. —SpacemanSpiff 11:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, Anoptimistix, your actions here are nothing more than a waste of community time, and I'm sure this isn't the only such thing out there. —SpacemanSpiff 12:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's your overlap with at least one paid COI sock farm -- one of the reasons Siddharth Slathia was salted under a few titles, but you seem to be aware of that when you created it at Sidharth Slathia despite referring to the subject as Siddharth Slathia within the article. Please explain this as well. —SpacemanSpiff 12:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 SpacemanSpiff I apologise if this thread seemed inappropriate, as you both are much experienced and are here since years and I respect you both. I agree SpacemanSpiff I should not have sended email to request you to intervene (I sended that because from my point of view the user appeared to be a wikihounder and the evidences given by admin swarm was more than nough to prove my point), and as you were an uninvolved administrator plus I really like the cricket related articles which you created. And yes fair point SpacemanSpiff I should have Boldly moved that article about the new user which was about themself to their userspace instead of taking to Afd. Next time I will boldly move such articles to the users userspace. And SpacemanSpiff the subject of Siddharth Slathia had in-depth coverage by reliable news media Hindustan Times which made it pass WP:GNG and also WP:MUSICBIO, and the last admin who deleted it was inactive and I had already requested to unprotect it's creation at WP:RPP to allow me to create it, however my request was denied as the admin who denied it wasn't familiar with the reliability of Indian media and it's coverage. Please assume good faith SpacemanSpiff, I was about to go at Request moves to move that article after it's creation, but I started creating articles about Indian villages ad Census Town and bringing nominations of great content creators at PERM.Anoptimistix (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanSpiff The problem starts back in 2014 when Siddharth Slathia's was not enough notable to merit an article, but after 2016 September the entry of Reliance Jio changed the scenario, Indian music listeners started exploring Youtube and appreciating Singers who sing cover versions, as they were a subject of public interest they got enough in-depth coverage per WP:GNG to merit an article of their own. I hope I have answered to your question. But now my interest more lies in creating articles about towns, villages and geographical places. Anoptimistix (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not buying this, if this was one issue in isolation then it can be passed off as not knowing, but these are multiple issues where you have deliberately chosen to behave this way. I'm also not convinced that you should have the autoreviewer flag and all your creations have to be checked. —SpacemanSpiff 13:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 The brief evidences of disruptive editing given by long-time prolific admin Swarm [35] is enough to justify my concern. And yes I could not give more evidence even after two weeks at the live SPI, becoz that page revision history was deleted by an admin (please check the log of that page). And I personally have requested the checkuser on their talk page to close it down. My heartfelt apologies for late reply to SpacemanSpiff and Hijiri88, and Hijiri88 yes I have contacted the blocking admin, but since after the admin Swarm's years of service, they now remain less active so i came here and my concern are genuine about the user Umair Aj , please see this, the latest case related to the user Umair Aj [36], (a good faith user appealed the user Umair Aj to stop edit warring, but instead of taking it's cognizance they reverted it the appeal notice, this shows the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and there is another evidence which is yet another revert of a warning, yup this is another revert of edit warring notice. Admin Swarm on the users talk page as well as I here have given more than enough evidence. But still Hijri88 you think I am badmouthing ? For your info Hijri88 I spend large time on this project for welcoming new users and I firmly believe in Editor Retention, Regards.

SpacemanSpiff Yes you can surely check my creations at Xtools, most of them are about villages and census town, notable living people and songs which are created per WP:BIO, WP:NSONG and WP:GEOFEAT. Anoptimistix (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anoptimistix, at RFPP you were specifically advised to submit that draft to AfC, and then if it was accepted it could be moved: [37]. Instead you ignored that advice and changed the spelling to get around the protection:[38]. Why? -- Begoon 14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Begoon Apology for that dear, the first time I requested I had made a draft about it on my sandbox but a user Winged Blades of Godric wrote on my talk page that my request was not accepted (you can check my talk page history), the next time I request I don't know what happened of that as I used a small mobile device to edit Wikipedia which requires lot of hard work, and I get notification when my fellow wikipedian inlink my created article and ping me, rest updates about my request I do not get until I get message on my talk page. Anoptimistix (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it was a different, later draft. Its history shows no AfC submission I can see, and anyway that doesn't answer my question about altering the spelling to get around the protection (2nd diff above):[39]. -- Begoon 14:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's this copyvio from as recently as two months ago. Clearly, you shouldn't have autopatrolled rights, as your contributions need to be reviewed. Unless Malinaccier has some objections because they reviewed the copyvios as well as the removal of many articles at AfD and didn't think it to be a problem, I will remove that right from you. —SpacemanSpiff 14:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: Hi. As you know, the autopatrolled right merely marks a newly created article as patrolled, which I do not see as a problem based on Anoptimistix's created article log. If you believe that Anoptimistix will create a new article in the future that is a copyvio based on continued copyright violations or that there are other deeper misunderstandings of article policy, then removal of the autopatrolled right is appropriate and I of course defer to you. You appear to be much more personally familiar with Anoptimistix's editing abilities. From the outside, the issues you have raised may be best dealt with by a block or a clear and final warning to Anoptimistix before a block if they are part of a pattern of continued disruption. Malinaccier (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Begoon I edit Wikipedia from a small Android device, the only update which I got is this [40] by user Winged Blades of Godric, I swear I was unaware about the suggestion given by the admin on my second request. Anoptimistix (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason for the spelling change to the title: [41]? Perhaps you missed that part of my question again? -- Begoon 15:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanSpiff you love cricket so does I love music, so I create music related articles but it's also true that I have numerous non-music related articles and yes that I have not violated knowingly any copyvio, I write content in my intermediate knowledge of english. I think you didn't liked my help request mail, it was my mistake I mistakenly thought you were ready to help. Anoptimistix (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanSpiff Can you please show which article of mine was deleted at AfD. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoptimistix (talk • contribs) 14:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC) And SpacemanSpiff can you please show which article of mine was deleted at AfD. ? The only one which I can remember was about a song, which was soft-deleted as nobody participated in Afd discussion except nominator. And later was successfully restored at WP:REFUND. SpacemanSpiff even if you remove autoreviewer rights than still I will keep on creating articles about villages, towns , notable songs as I love creating articles, and yes if you disliked that help request email i really apologize for it, I wrongly assumed you as an always ready to help admin, would better seek help of admin who publicly write that they are ready to help on their userpage, next time if I face harrasment here. As they say better go for a third opinion of an uninvolved admin if you face troublesome here so I asked help from you. Sorry will not ask help from you next time. Anoptimistix (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pinging me! As for articles, I said removed, not deleted as there are quite a few that had to be redirected at AfD and don't about your email to me, you did not assume I'm helpful, you said you were contacting me because I'm Indian and speak Hindi! I'm always ready to help good-faith editors, but that was not your request, simple as that. —SpacemanSpiff 15:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malinaccier Thanks for your comment, but I want to clarify I have never been a part of disruption here, neither I knowingly violated any copyright, never an admin have warned me for copyvio, and spacemanspiff (I'm not pinging you per your above comment) my contributions here includes posting welcomes messages at numerous newbie's talk page for editor retention purpose, patrolling 300 plus new pages, bringing nominations of good content creators at WP:PERM/A to reduce backlog at NPP and workload of new page patrollers, many times I wrote articles of newbies from scratch devoting hours for it, struggled to find indepth sources to save their articles from deletion, and create numerous articles about underrepresented villages and town which passes WP:GEOFEAT (certainly all of those were good-faith edits). And SpacemanSpiff after you declined to help me some months ago and reverted my "You've got an email" edit on your talk page with an edit summary which had no piece of help, I was thinking about quitting the project but then I went upto administrator User:Anarchyte who encouraged me to stay on Wikipedia and commended my contributions. SpacemanSpiff I have got references of some kind-hearted polite admins who are ready to help at stressful situations, next time If I face such situations I would request help from them. Once again apologizing for sending you help request email. Anoptimistix (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anoptimistix, your passive-aggressive hints about SpacemanSpiff are merely ridiculous. Don't attack people here. Bishonen | talk 19:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen Aplology for the belated reply it's 1.43 am here. I was just defending myself, I don't mean to sound aggressive towards SpacemanSpiff. He have made immense contributions to WikiProject:India and I am always indebted to them for this. Anoptimistix (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trout? Boomerang?

I haven't read through all the above bludgeoning, but what I did read (that which was addressed at me) didn't look promising. Anoptimistix (talk · contribs) appears to have opened this thread for no purpose but to whine about someone who's already blocked, has admitted to requesting a CU for phishing, has been flagrantly stealth-canvassing, and just keeps refusing to drop it despite all the voices telling him to. I'm leaning in favour of ~~a quick close and a heavy WP:TROUT for the OP, but my gut is telling me that~~ a WP:BOOMERANG ~~miht not be out of order~~. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response : Please see this [42], I had last month requested the checkuser who asked for more evidence to close down the SPI , as I believed that page, on which I suspected vandalism by the user (who was formerly proved as a master sock) to be oversighted, later I learnt from the logs of that page that a major part of the Revision History has been suppressed, even the checkuser affirmed that the sock activity on that page is suspicious on that live SPI, however I requested them to close it down as obviously I couldn't see the edits anymore and couldn't provide diffs. Warm Regards. Anoptimistix (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't suppressed or I don't think you would see it in the logs at all - it was revision deleted by Diannaa - (RD1-Copyright violations) ... -- Begoon 09:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Begoon That page is a high traffic article, with over 100,000 visitors a month (I got this info from page information link) and many editors have edited it in past as well, pages about celebs are heavily edited, that page was created and edited since 2013 I'm here since 2016 :) Anoptimistix (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think at the least autoreviewer and NPP user rights have to be removed owing to the copyvios and poor quality articles from the past two months. The user also doesn't seem to understand anything and as evidenced on their repeated parroting of the above claim of me being unhelpful to their canvassing email that asked me to take action against Umair Aj only because I share a nationality with him(the OP), well then, it's obvious he hasn't got a clue of editing collaboaratively or understanding policies, guidelines, and standards. Then, there's the refusal to answer Begoon's question, the overlap with a paid COI sock farm. Like I said in my edit summary in response to his canvassing email, I had no interest of wasting my time on this, unfortunately I've gotten sucked in. —SpacemanSpiff 00:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support two-week block I just noticed the OP's repeated dosging of User:Begoon's question about his obvious attempt to game the system with a trick of spelling. Anoptimistix needs to be taught that this behaviour is completely unacceptable. I think if there are serious COPYVIO concerns an indef might be justified, but at least as long as Umair seems appropriate given the behaviour demonstrated in this thread. Also support removal of user rights per SpacemanSpiff. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hijiri88 Mate Please check the latest update, I have replied to Begoon, Siddharth and Sidharth both are synonymous per Indian naming system. And instead of starting this section if you would have left a polite note on my talk page, indicating that this project no longer needs my contributions. I would have voluntarily declared retirement without any sorrows, but still i would repeatedly say I have not violated any copyright intentionally, infact somedays back I have Earwig's copyvio detecting tool installed at my User:Anoptimistix/common.js for assisting me at NPP. I have done my best to attribute original source and wrote contents on my words. Further there is no evidence that I intentionally violated any copyright. Anoptimistix (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per SpacemanSpiff, I support removal of the user rights - there is clearly a need for that to happen. I also glanced at WP:PERM/A, which the OP points to, and most of the OPs nominations there are declined at the moment, so perhaps that's not a good activity for them right now (especially with any COI/gaming concerns here). With regards to further action, I'm not sure; there are, indeed, worrying signs that Anoptimistix does lack a certain amount of competence, and the walls of evasion and attempted deflection above are concerning. On the other hand, ANI is a stressful place, and there do appear to be some good intentions in their contributions. -- Begoon 01:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Begoon Thanks for your kind words at the end , and I want to inform you only some of my recent nominations were declined, most of my nominations at WP:PERM/A were accepted. Even the declining admin Alex Shih himself thanked me for bringing it. Regards, [43] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoptimistix (talk • contribs) 01:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Begoon I did not observe the additional question which you ask me, I will reply, I was about to go at the requested moves for that, and really I was not informed that I was recommended to create draft of the subject, I get notifications only when I am pinged, my articles are inlinked and if I get message on my talk page by the Bell icon on the right hand on my mobile phone, if I knew I was recommended to create a draft first in the subject of Slathia, I would have surely created draft first. And SpacemanSpiff which copyvio you are taking about, can you give me any evidence where an administrator /user have warned me but still I committed copyvio? And you said poor quality of articles since 2 months I have been creating stub articles about underrepresented Indian villages and towns, Do you think those efforts are of poor quality and my recent article was about a cricketer Jasia Akhtar, she clearly passes notability, and administrator Malinaccier have already given my articles creation log above I don't know when i committed copyvio and was warned by an admin/users and then again repeated it ?. And you are misinterpreting the email, at that time I requested can you help to deal me with the stress and you certainly did not helped, and that too was some months ago. Let SpacemanSpiff be clear I have never ever received any warning for copyvio on my creations, infact the accusation of knowingly committing any copyvio is itself baseless. Anoptimistix (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atrocious. You were warned on April 2 by Diannaa, and you continued doing the same thing on the same article since then until as recently as August! Another note from Diannaa on Jun 14 reg copyright of lyrics. Then there's this where you were again warned about both tag removals as well as copyright violations; there's also this which implies that you shouldn't be reviewing new pages (as also evidenced by the recent diff I posted above). —SpacemanSpiff 04:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanSpiff those were not warnings they were cautions and requests. After prolific admin Dianna recommended me some months ago to not write lyrics of the song, after that I have never written lyrics of any song, In my early days here I wrote the lyrics of the song as I thought it was permissible as editors who edit films article write entire plot, which is more serious copyvio. But I now no longer write articles about songs, as songs articles are not valued here. At NPP I have worked honestly and even my almighty knows it, I have struggled to find indepth coverages to save New comers articles from deletion and single handedly written it from scratch. But SpacemanSpiff please also take a look at Nichalp, the user was a former admin and bureaucrat desyssoped for paid editing by arbitration committee per WP:MISS list, they have been inactive for years but I can see they still have many rights. However dear SpacemanSpiff I myself voluntarily decided to quit the project, Regards will always pray for your good health and long life. Anoptimistix (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The (still) unanswered question (now for the 4th time), was - Why, when moving your draft to mainspace [44], did you deliberately circumvent the protection you knew was in place by altering the spelling in the title? You did that simply to get the article into mainspace and autopatrolled, in my opinion, and the move you now say you were "about to" request, even if you had done so, would not make that action any less wrong. Have you requested the move now that you've "remembered"? (If you reply to this, please properly indent your response - sticking all your posts unindented at the bottom has made a huge mess of this thread.) -- Begoon 02:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Begoon I was going to do that but spend more time in creating articles about different topics, Inititally I was finding it difficult to create it through my mobile phone, so i wrote Sidharth Slathia, because this Indian name is especially used by the Marathi community to pronounce, so I thought no problem in it as both words are synonymous, the Indian pronouncing style Siddharth=Sidharth would remain same, for evidence please check the subject of Shreya Ghoshal initially when it's creator created it, her last name was spelled Ghosal rather than Ghoshal because both are synonymous, and the content inside the article reffered her as Ghoshal, later it was moved per request, and I have requested the move about Slathia. [45] Anoptimistix (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That might have been a bit plausible if it were not for the fact that you knew at the time that the article was create protected, having already enquired about it, subsequently had a draft rejected, and still did not request the move until prompted here once again. In these circumstances I'm afraid it stretches AGF past breaking point, sorry. -- Begoon 03:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support to removal of user flags. As per diffs available above, Anoptimistix clearly misused his autopatrolled flag for creating a salted article. He can also misuse the NPP flag. Once Anoptimistix had accused me of wiki-hounding him, ironically, since then I started to skim his contrib history in every few days. His overall behaviour is very suspicious (immediate clearing of talkpage, his explanations in requests at WP:PERM for NPP, and page mover flags). At one time, I even raised concern about his auto-patrolled flag over article creation of not-so-notable songs: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 11#Improper A-PAT.3F. He is clearly working very hard to get a good standing in the community, but his other side also gets visible once in a while. Which leads to the question, why is he working so hard on his image? —usernamekiran(talk) 02:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamekiran Thanks for commenting here, the incident which you are talking about were many months ago, I have personally apologized from you on the talk pages if you can remember, initially I thought you were observing my contrb history in with an intention to Afd my articles (like you did with that two articles), and fair point that was silly I was little protective about my creations, but later you turned friendly as you started supporting my keep votes at Afd's for example Kanpur Police Station and many others and about your thread at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 11#Improper A-PAT.3F, as you can see prolific content creator right there MrX said that most articles I created were sourced by reliable sources, he commented this when I didn't have any flags. And At NPP rights page I have requested I would help to expand stub article and a admin granted me, later I honestly fullfilled it, please check my NPP reviewing log, I had expanded most new articles from scratch, struggled accross the web to collect in-depth references to save newbies first creation from deletion and at NPP I had declined your one of speedy deletion because it could have been easily userfied , even admin SoWHy declined your recent nomination which you tagged for CSD A7, according to him the claim of winning the award was enough to credibly indicate the significance of the subject. I believe in saving worthy articles from deletion, because articles made Wikipedia. Readers read Wikipedia becoz of articles, this is a project which is very dear to me as since my childhood I use this as my reference, I cannot thank enough to those hardworking volunteers like us who build this without taking any penny. Anoptimistix (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support revocation of auto patrolled and NPP flags per WP:CIR. Editors lack of understanding of nuanced English is amply illustrated above in his discourse on notification, caution and warning. Anoptimistix, a mother cautioning her child not to play on the railroad tracks is just as much a warning as the locomotive's horn as it is about to run you over. If you lack the language skills to discern that, you haven't the skill set to review other's (or your own) work. Simple as that! John from Idegon (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of the two rights but oppose block. I don't believe he's crossed the line to warrant any blocks (yet), but there is evidence to the user being unable to properly analyse an article before creating or patrolling it. I believe their heart might be in the right place but their actions are questionable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of the two rights but oppose block. Sorry for the copy and paste, but I agree with Anarchyte completely. I also believe Anoptimistix's heart is in the right place based on my interactions (which are limited to WP:PERM only), but this thread was ill-advised to begin with, and every evidence presented here in addition to every subsequent response are simply indefensible. Alex Shih ^Talk 08:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Alex Shih and Anarchyte Thanks both for your kindwords, I don't mind getting both flags removed, I requested for autoreviewer right as my created articles were remaining unreviewed for many months, and I had requested NPP right because when I was brand new my first article was speedily deleted like it happens with most new comers, I requested it so that I can find in-depth secondary sources coverage to cite as references at the newbies created article to make it pass WP:GNG and Mark it reviewed so that they can stay here for long time, but in my service here I have never justified any copyvio like Usernamekiran evidence is [46], Usernamekiran themself said that there copied material should not be deleted, isn't this intentional copyvio ?is intentionally justifying copyvio by Usernamekiran on their created article is fair for a user with NPP rights ? Whatever it was but I greatly respect Kiran and will always acknowledge his contributions and service done here. And Anarchyte and Alex Shih your comment that my heart is in right place was really heartwarming, Thanks once again. Anoptimistix (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anoptimistix, you really are not doing yourself any favours here. You started this ill-advised thread to attempt to get further sanctions on a blocked user. Since then you've done little but attempt to evade and deflect criticism, groping for fault in those who have pointed out any of your errors, grasping at the few positive things people have had to say, while ignoring or incoherently and long-windedly "justifying" the negative. You should try to remove those blinkers. You behaved atrociously towards SpacemanSpiff, now Usernamekiran is your latest "target". Also, did you not see "their actions are questionable" or "every evidence presented here in addition to every subsequent response are simply indefensible" in the comments you were so grateful for? I'm honestly not sure you absorbed them if you did. I said above that I wasn't sure if additional sanctions were needed, but truly, each time you make a post like this I feel more like they might be, as my estimate of your competence, self-awareness and ability to interact collegially decreases. -- Begoon 14:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was not intending to comment on this thread again, but the situation is calling for it.

Anoptimistix, I am always friendly. I never opposed or supported any particular individual ever. I did whatever the policy said. That police department deserved an article so I voted keep. Your participation had no influence over me.
Since very beginning, when your account was fairly recently active, you were told by another user not to clear your talkpage like the way you were doing. You were told to archive it. This was a clear indication to yourself that you were not familiar with enwiki policies, and "wiki code", yet on your userpage you continued to put stuff like "I help new users".
Your english is not so good (sended, runned, didnt liked; and many grammatical errors), and yet your articles are perfectly fine. Not even a single mistake. And thats suspicious.
- Your userpage also contains some userboxes that you have nothing to do with, or you dont have the skills for (eg "guild of copyeditors").
- I see this as you are trying to improve your own image in the eyes of the community, but not an attempt to improve the encyclopaedia (which you also do, but I now believe it is just a cover).
Regarding my "justification" for copy-vio: The content which was copied, falls under public domain. In other words, it doesnt have any copyrights. So I never violated copyright law, as the copyrights didnt exist. I didnt "justified" my copy-paste. At the time I copied the content; I was aware of the copyright terms of the content, i was aware of copyright laws, and i was aware of enwiki policies. I simply explained the situation. Its not a justification.
This also reminds me: how do you know about it? I would like to mention here that Anaoptimix seems to have been hounding my activities.
- He requested for NPP flag, which I think I already had when we had our first communication. Later he requested for page mover flag, twice; after a few days/weeks from me getting the flag. His reasoning for the flag was odd too. These requests maybe co-incidences.
- Anoptimistix also seems to loosely copy my contributions. A few weeks ago, I created a category for recipients of an intelligence award. And I was recently tagginng a lot of categories with a wikiproject banner. And around the same time, the user in discussion started contributing in categories field.

The user also seems to be extraordinarily familiar with policies of a very limited area, which interesting as well. Also, if somebody is looking at their talkpage history, it hasnt been properly archived. One archive is not visible on the talkpage, and some threads were not archived at all. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notify - Usernamekiran Bro I had initiated the discussion about the possible copyright violations due to plot on Wikipedia's film articles some days ago where some fellow wikipedians opined it may be where some not, please see the discussion on the talk page. Anoptimistix (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Kiran - Well dear Usernamekiran I will reply to this one by one 1) You asked that how can I help newcomers If I don't know "wikicode" , Well i can say we don't need to be an expert in wikicode to help newcomers for example if a blind man want to cross the street we don't need to be a specialist doctor for helping him, instead we can also help ! So does I, I try to help people not only on Wikipedia but on real life too

2) You asked my "English is not perfect than how my articles are perfectly fine" well I take this as a compliment because spacemanspiff said it's poorly written and Begoon used insulting remarks at Hijri88's talk page. Well I want to reply that grammatical errors are because of Android autocorrect and autoprediction (which predicts mostly wrong) but I rectify it and takes a special care and preview it at least 3 times before publishing on main space, for example see a companies article which I created per WP:CORPDEPTH, as soon as I started it it attracted significant other contributors including IP users who expanded it see the diffs [47], and I ould also like to share credits with our hardworking special souls.

3) You asked me dear that I have no skills of Copyediting then why I had put guild of copyeditors userbox ? Well I want to reply that you have written that you are a computer scientist on your userpage but I can't see any helpful bot or userscripts of yours in action, does it means that you have lied ? Certainly not, similarly I am learning copyediting and doing my best to learn it.

4) You asked that that how I know about your justification of copyvio, you wrote there Even if it is copied, it can be edited. I got to know about it because of Xtools-Article creation log, you have contributed 4 or 3 articles so it was not very difficult to find about it as I am primarily an article writer so of course I have a bit of research skills.

5) You asked that why my talk discussions is not properly archived, you know the answer bro ! I am not a programmer (I only know start level HTML and some CSS) and wikimarkups so of course I didn't knew about MuszaBot/config archiving system. You shared it with me , for this I will always be grateful to you dear Kiran, but as I got the script of one click archive, I got more comfortable with it so I no longer need MuszaBot/config.

6) I am aware of article creation policies primarily which includes WP:RS WP:NOR, WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GEOFEAT, WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:NACTOR WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:ANYBIO, WP:BLP and many others, I hope you got all your answers. But I still think you could have simply asked this on my talk page :) Anoptimistix (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal of the two rights but oppose block. Per Anarchyte. Miles Edgeworth ^Objection! 01:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update The user's communication here shows an extreme flaw in his understanding of copyright laws. Excluding his interaction with Diaana (and his confusion over "caution", "request", and "warnings"), the user apparently doesnt understand what copyright violation is. He even said "writing plot of movie is more serious copy-vio". When pointing out my "voilation", he provided this diff. Within the diff itself I explained why it wasnt a violation, and even provided link to {{PD-USGov}}. The template provides a good deal of information. I doubt he didnt see the template, he must have seen it. It clearly indicates he doesnt understad what copyrights actually are. In this case, NPP, and A-PAT are not suitable for him. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This comment reminded me to take a quick look through Anoptimistix's Commons uploads, since images are my "thing". There were already a good few deleted copyvios in the talk page history, and unfortunately I found several more that needed to be deleted: [48], [49], [50]. A fair number of these deleted uploads relate to the Arijit Singh article, which was linked way above by SpacemanSpiff with regards to copyvio concerns, making this of some relevance here. -- Begoon 02:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Begoon I am always grateful to usernamekiran because they had shared Muszabot archiving config with me which helped me to archive talk pages some months ago (before this I unintentionally removed posts on my talk page as I like to keep things clean), and I respect them but was little hurt with their behaviour towards me at this place, before coming here they went to an admins (SpacemanSpiff) talk page and notified them about their email which is apparently about demoting my user rights and further motivated them to misuse admins revision deletion tool to delete edit history, but as spacemanspiff is a experienced admin he simply ignored it [51]. Encouraging an admin to misuse their tool is ungodly, and as they asked me about spelling mistakes, it is because of Android autocorrect keyboard mostly and they even made typo mistakes on their above comment, but I didn't made fun of their typo errors because we all are human beings we all mistakes but we should also rectify it. Begoon if you can remember in 2012 when you completed more than 2 years on Wikipedia you created an article about a school Scone Grammar School which has "no secondary reliable source coverage" and your only article creation to this date" it is clear that it's fails WP:GNG and WP:RS and the primary sources that is the school's website url's are dead not functioning, it appears that it is your school and a clear case of Conflict of Interest but I never pointed it out because I respect you as my colleague and also your efforts in creating that article, and further you insulted my created article Jasia Akhtar by calling it "crappy" on the user talk of the user who opened this "Boomerang" section [52], but again I won't feel bad because I respect you as my fellow wikipedian. I don't mind if any of the rights are removed but such insults really hurts, more than any removal of a right. And I thanked Anarchyte and Alex Shih because they are great hardworking admins but thought to spend some of their valuable time to write kind words about my personality. Anoptimistix (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least I win the $5 I bet my wife this morning that it was about time you turned your aimless flailing towards me. As with most of the things you have said in this thread you are completely wrong. No, it isn't "my school" - the article was created with a young relative who attended the school observing, so she could learn about wikipedia. It's my only article creation because article creation isn't what I do. Check out instead, amongst much else, my contributions to the Graphic Labs, and the many hundreds of time consuming image improvements here and at Commons before I became recently less active. I have no need to justify myself to you - I do this merely in the vain hope that you might think "oh, shit, I've gone and made an even bigger damn fool of myself by mindlessly lashing out again without looking at the big picture..." I know it's unlikely, but one can hope. You may learn, eventually. -- Begoon 16:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Begoon about their query about Sidharth Slathia - Begoon kindly please see an article by reliable and reputed Indian news media Hindustan Times Click here for the coverage. As you can see this coverage is very significant, reliable, independent of the subject but was published in September 2017, not in 2014 (when the article about slathia was deleted ). The WP:NTEMP guide says once a subject has received "significant coverage in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage". The topic has significant coverage, it also passes WP:MUSICBIO criteria number 1 which reads Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. Passes all notability tests. So you mean to say only a singer who sings in English language deserves an article on Wikipedia, rest don't ? And I have also not cited "primary sources" like personal websites as references like you did to Scone Grammar School. Once again I clarify I respect you as well as your contributions, but giving appropriate reply in the best civilised way, I will never use humilating remarks like "crappy" like you did to me at the "Boomerang" section opener Hijri88's talk page [53], Regards. Anoptimistix (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have utterly lost the plot, now. I have absolutely no idea why you posted all that (especially the very odd bit about English language singers - what??). Show me where I have ever said the current version of the Sidharth Slathia article fails our inclusion criteria - or you could just say "oops, sorry, you haven't said that at all", I guess... -- Begoon 17:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anoptimistix: This is going to be my last comment in this thread. There is a 50-50% chance that the email was about you. Maybe it was about another user. Usually I contact another admin for such matters, but he is busy with his real life issues; so I contacted Spaceman. Kindly do not assume it was about you. I usually prefer emails, this was not the first incident. And no, I did not request anybody to demote any user. I simply expressed my opinions. And as per my comment above, I have supported to remove your two flags, not one. So there are very high chances the email was about somebody else. Or maybe it was about you.

Although, I am curious how did you come across this thread which was deleted after a very short period. Maybe you have watchlisted spaceman's talkpage, or maybe you skimmed through my edit history. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please close this

Consensus is obvious, this thread has outlived its value now and is just adding to the wastage of storage space and bandwidth! —SpacemanSpiff 13:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, any continuation is simply pointless. I am starting to consider WP:IAR and close this thread/enact the consensus if no one else closes. Alex Shih ^Talk 14:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please do I am visiting here daily because running away from this place would portray me as courageless. I am happy contributing to this project as long as my enthusiasm remains, with or without any right. Had only requested Autoreviewer right as most of my creations would remain unreviewed for months, the right granting admin was very kind, but I can contribute without this right too ! And I had request NPP to help New comers by supporting their newly created pages by citing in-depth coverages and marking it as reviewed which I honestly did I will continue patrolling newpages but will not be able to mark it as reviewied it which is fine. I also thank all those who "opposed block" you guys were very kind. I also request apology from SpacemanSpiff as some users felt I was aggressive towards them, which I certainly wasn't and have always respected them and their immense contributions to this project which includes mammoth collection of articles and other tireless contributions to the project. Best wishes. Anoptimistix (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Editing behaviour at David S. Chang

The editor Preschang has been making some concerning edits of the David S. Chang article. Allegations have been made by another editor that Preschang is David S. Chang, while Preschang is loudly decrying the article as libellous, which seems like an implied kegal threat. I came to this aricle from a 3O request, but since Preschang isn't engaging in discussion, that's not the appropriate resolution forum. An admin taking a look at the situation would be helpful. Thanks. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My ex wife made an implied kegel threat once. 'Bout broke my back. John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

John from Idegon, that was A+. Your are cordially invited to join my glittering array of talk page stalkers. E Eng 18:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Marathon: I've left the user a message regarding this, asking them to propose their desired changes on the talk page or contact Wikipedia. If they remove they info again, I'll give them an edit-warring warning. Thanks. Linguist^un Eins ^uno 10:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the info pending confirmation by more than 1 local newspaper, based on un-named sources, when law enforcement have not even confirmed under investigation, let alone charged with anything. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for gossip. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT violation at Povl Riis

User:Pigsonthewing is repeatedly reverting Povl Riis to a worse version because that version includes his pet template Template:Cite Q, a template which gets references straight from Wikidata instead of using the standard, local referencing.

He is changing from (my version)

Reynolds L A, Tansey E M. (eds) (2007) Medical ethics education in Britain, 1963–93, Wellcome Witnesses to Twentieth Century Medicine, vol. 31. p. 187 London: The Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL.ISBN 978-0-85484-113-4

to this

Lois Reynolds; Tilli Tansey, eds. (2007), Medical Ethics Education in Britain, 1963–1993, Wellcome Witnesses to Twentieth Century Medicine, History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group, p. 187, ISBN 978-0-85484-113-4, Wikidata Q29581753

(both versions have bluelinks and external links in them on the page), despite the fact that the source itself says:

Please cite as : Reynolds L A, Tansey E M. (eds) (2007) Medical Ethics Education in Britain, 1963-1993. Wellcome Witnesses to Twentieth Century Medicine, vol. 31. London: Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL.

Which also matches our standard sourcing systems much closer (e.g. the names of the authors). Apparently my version was "crud"[54].

The only reason why Pigsonthewing keeps reverting this superior cite to an inferior one is to keep his Wikidata template in the article. I started the discussion at the talk page of the article, but instead got reverted again without adressing the actual reasons why I found my version better than his version[55]. Fram (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The POINT editing is wholly Fram's; he only started to disrupt the use of Cite Q - and "repeatedly reverting" as he did so - after calling for its deletion in a tendentious discussion in which we were involved, on opposite sides, and in which he makes his antipathy to including almost anything from Wikidata clear. As my edit upon first reverting him showed, it's possible to do the kind of Wikipedia-over-Wikidata localisation he wants, using that template, and without throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. I now see that he had already been advised in that discussion, by another editor, that ""correct place to raise this discussion is on the talk page of the template", but has not done so. It also seems he's begun stalking my edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noted at the Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs#UNREADABLE WIKIDATA REFS discussion (which I didn't start) that Povl Riis was an example of where this template gave wrong or problematic results. I corrected this. You then started reverting to your inferior version, while for some reason calling my version "crud". At the talk page discussion as well, you didn't address even one fundamental point about what was wrong with your preferred version, or indicated how mine was inferior. Starting or not starting a discussion about a template at the talk page of that template (only populated by pro-Wikidata editors in the first place) has no bearing on correcting an article. If I had replaced your version without making any improvements, you might have had a point. But reverting three times to re-insert your own inferior version with your own template is clear WP:OWN behaviour.

As for my "stalking" of your edits: I opened your contributions list, to see whether you pulled the same stunt elsewhere as well. I then accidentally misclicked (the diff you added), which I immediately, in the same minute, revertedthe diff you forgot to mention). And that's all there is to my "stalking" of your edits. Fram (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, WP:CITEVAR also applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. No idea why you would bring this up though, as your version didn't "defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page" but introduced a different style. Fram (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of us has been changing a pre-existing reference from one style to another; it is not me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...which is not what WP:CITEVAR is about. And which is not what my edit did: I changed an incorrect reference to a correct one, and at the same time made the style for the reader consistent with the other, older references, and with the style preferred by the authors of the source as well. You, on the other hand, not only initially added a reference which was inconsistent with the established style at the article, but which contained errors, but much worse reverted to your version after improvements had been made, only because they didn't match your preference, not because they didn't match the citation style of the article. You should really carefully read WP:CITEVAR before you proceed to us this as your defense. Fram (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, not Wikidata again? We shouldn't be using anything from there because it is even more like the Wild West than this place. My reading of CITEVAR aligns with that of Fram but I have seen people argue that the point is not which template is used but rather that there is a consistent output, ie: the visuals. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fram is correct in his interpretation of citevar here. The relevant parts of WP:CITEVAR are: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference" and "it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it" - with the disclaimer I have not verified if this is the case here, I am assuming what Fram says is correct regarding the article's existing style. But this is beside the point however that we should not be deferring to information on wikidata if it needs correcting. No editor on ENWP should be required to visit another project in order to effect changes on a Wikipedia article if it requires improvement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one is or was required to visit Wikidata. Like I said above: "As my edit upon first reverting him showed, it's possible to do the kind of Wikipedia-over-Wikidata localisation he wants, using that template, and without throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. " Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done this to fix a rather ridiculous use of Cite Q at another article. Andy, really, why are you doing this? It didn't even need another source adding to the article - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I have to add parameters to change the editors' names, change the title, change the link to the pdf, change the journal name, add the volume number, add the page number, and change the publisher's name (assuming all of these are even possible with the current template), then what is the actual use of the cite Q template? Fram (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue for that discussion. Simple answer is "it makes re-using an already used citation much easier, the same as any template", but you need to take that to the deletion debate. --RexxS (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What deletion debate? It appears to be a comment by one user, not an MfD or similar. If you could provide a link to a true deletion debate, that would be great. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for the issue at hand, I have a problem with this statement: "No one is or was required to visit Wikidata." What if an external link used in a cite to a Wikidata template goes dead? Then you would be required to go on Wikidata if you want to fix it. All in all, I can't say that I'm thrilled about the existence of this template. How many editors on here are going to have these templates on their watchlists, to ensure that they are not vandalized? It's just my opinion, but I fear that the Wikidata supporters are going to turn the Wikipedia community off with these features, to the point where there will be sniping between supporters of the various sites. Maybe that's what is happening here. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This short article has had several styles of referencing throughout its recent past. Both citation templates and hand-crafted citations have been present throughout most of its history, so there's no place for CITEVAR here. What has happened, though, is that Andy made 17 edits to the article on 26 June 2017, expanding it and increasing the number of sources from 3 to 5, as well as referencing more of the text. I can see no problem with those edits. Then on 12 September 2017, Fram made this edit: edit summary Correct source. What he actually did was replace the citation using {{citeQ}} with a hand crafted citation, accidentally removed the text about Riis' time at Herlev University Hospital, and labelled that as "Correct source". If he had summarised it as reversed forename/surname, one might have some sympathy with his intentions, but to be deliberately obtuse in this way is uncollegial; and to run to ANI over this feeble dispute is distinctly a case of playground mentality. If Fram wants to make the case for having "surname, forename" instead of "forename surname", or for linking to a pdf instead of a webpage, the place for that is on Talk:Povl Riis, where I observe nothing more than posturing instead of rational explanation. One style may well be "worse formatting of the authors" than another, but without a rationale, how can anyone expect to judge? And how on Earth anyone is expected to take seriously a complaint that the publisher's name is wrong, when one version links directly to History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group and the other version is piped to the same article ([[History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group|The Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL]]), is beyond me. --RexxS (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Rexxs, another Wikidata defender with whom I just happened to have an earlier acruimonious conflict, coming to present his neutral, objective, and especially wrong version of the facts. This was my first edit to that page: I did not "accidentally removed the text about Riis' time at Herlev University Hospital", so please retract that false claim. Furthermore, I did not simply "reversed forename/surname", I corrected the name of the journal and the name of the publisher, and added the volume number.

Thanks for adding the personal attack "playground mentality" though. That you only observe "posturing" at the article talk pags is your problem, I can't help you with your observational skills. "without a rationale, how can anyone expect to judge?" is true. I invite everyone to see who did provide a rationale, and who didn't, at the article talk page. "how on Earth anyone is expected to take seriously a complaint that the publisher's name is wrong[...]": when a publisher or a journal) changes its name, but something is published under the old name, then we should use that name in our referencing as well. It's no coincidence that the actual journal uses that name in its own preferred "please cite this" statement. Again, that such a thing is beyond you can't be helped, but perhaps then leave this discussion to people who can accurately read a diff and can see the actual difference between two versions, instead of knee-jerk reacting. Fram (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In which you again side-step the fact that the template can be made to display current, past or any other variant names for journal, publisher, article, or - as I have demonstrated - the series. No doubt "that such a thing is beyond you can't be helped, but perhaps then leave this discussion to people who can accurately read a diff and..." who have taken the time to develop and document the template, and who are wiling to work to continue to improve it as new use-cases emerge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is utterly obscure, Andy. I don't see how it can be used without first going to Wikidata and trying to locate things there. Someone mentioned a deletion discussion above - do you know where it is? I understand the concept of standardisation and centralised templates but it isn't going to be much of a standard if it is going to be adjusted with multiple parameters. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts too. I wouldn't trust Wikidata further than I can throw it, but we need an answer ... what is the advantage to using it over the standard, reliable, citation format? Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a citation that appears in exactly one Wikipedia article in exactly one Wikipedia language, not much advantage. For citations that are used repeatedly across Wikipedia, either by multiple articles or multiple translations of the same article, there is a big advantage in unifying the citation metadata so that corrections or improvements only need to be made in one place rather than piecemeal across the many copies of the citation. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. It doesn't answer the question and it doesn't resolve the problem. Mistype one digit (even assuming I can find the thing) and I'm citing The Beano rather than the OED. It's a grand idea but it won't work: people often struggle to use the cite templates that we have, and they're nothing like as obscure as q|123456 imported from some distant project that has bugger-all control over what happens there. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthe wing, the question was not "can you change the template so that it eventually can do all these things", the question was "could the template, at the time of the editwar, present the reference like it should have done". And if the answer is "yes, by providing extra parameters for autorname, volume, page, publisher, article title, journal title, and correct url", then what is the actual benefit of using this template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 12:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's going to be consensus that swapping templates falls under CITEVAR, though it seems more unclear whether CITEVAR should apply in at least one of the specific examples given. Doesn't seem like it's headed for admin action, though. I went to comment here but realized I was commenting on the underlying content/style/referencing dispute rather than the behavioral issues that are the subject of this thread. IMO it seems like it would be a lot more productive to close this particular thread and start an RfC on use of this template (and/or on the broader concept of "templates which pull citation data from wikidata"). Apologies if I've missed where there was one, but it's obviously contentious, and there are pretty good points on both sides. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A broad RfC on Wikidata is urgently needed (but hard to set up correctly, "Wikidata: good or bad" is perhaps just too simplistic), but an MfD on this specific template may be warranted as well. Fram (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The MfD on the template is just a fait accompli where a small number of wikidata haters can destroy the possibility to use wikidata without a broader RfC. Such RfC will need to look at wider implications. For example do we want to keep our articles updated? Maybe not, as certainly we do not have the manpower to keep articles about subjects that are not located in the english-speaking realm up-to-date, while there are enaugh editors on the x-language edition of wikipedia who already do the the job there very well, and we would only need to piggyback on their efforts. Agathoclea (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give a stern reminder that accusations of personal behavior that lack evidence are considered personal attacks, and this is definitely happening up above. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further pointy behaviour by Pigsonthewing

Long list of diffs between Fram and Andy

Pigsonthewing has now found it necessary to thrice redact a comment I made [56][57][58], despite my clear indication that this is not wanted after the first[59] and second time[60].

Due to the many small edits Pigsonthewing made, my second revert resulted in an edit conflict, which I indicated on the page. Pigsonthewing not only saw fit to warn me about being blocked on my talk page, but also removed my comment in retaliation as well. Can someone please put a stop to this behaviour. Fram (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It did not simply result in "an edit conflict", you removed one of my comments entirely, along with part of a second, for which I duly and correctly warned you that repeating such behaviour may lead to a block. Your response used the edit summary "Hahaha", so presumably you think such behaviour is funny. Your later edit summary F off, involves less humour. The third of my edits, quoted by you above, was a straightforward revert of that unacceptable removal. And your comment was not "redacted", its content was completely unchanged. I merely fixed the malformed list formatting, as I have already explained to you, which is explicitly acceptable under WP:TALKO: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments... fixing list markup" (Although I wrote some of that, it's been in there for years, so clearly has community acceptance). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"F off" for an edit that removed a stray "f"[61]? Seems funny to me. And since when is using multiple paragraphs in a response a "list"? "Fixing list markup" is not changing a multi-paragraph response with a line break and a ":" to indicate the start of a new paragraph, with "br" which make the text much harder to edit. "The third of my edits, quoted by you above, was a straightforward revert of that unacceptable removal" and removed text added by me as well, so how is it any better? I'm not permitted to restore my text after you have twice changed it, but you are permitted to restore your text? Anyway, from WP:TALKO, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.". You edited, I asked you to stop, but you continued nevertheless. Doing this in general is frowned upon, doing this with someone you are already in conflict with is deliberate provocation. Fram (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"since when is using multiple paragraphs in a response a "list"?" Since MediaWIki started using : for marking up definition list items. I may be wrong (having only been around here since 2003), but I think that was 2002. HTH. And paragaphs are marked up with <P>, or by leaving a blank line. Again HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile it is Fram who continues WP:POINTy behaviour, removing another instance of Cite Q, which displayed the source's correct date of publication (2002) and ISBN (9780415266062), per the publisher's own web page, claiming to "correct date and ISBN". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I invite everyone to compare the version by Pigsonthewing with my version. Make sure to follow the link to check the ISBN and date given there. If you link to a specific version of a book, it is best practice to use the same isbn and date of publication. Linking to one version (the 2003 e-book) which has one ISBN, while using the date and ISBN from another version (the printed book) is best avoided. There is nothing WP:POINTY in correcting such issues, but reverting to a worse version, like you did here (just like in the article which started this report) is indeed WP:POINT violating. I hoped that the fact that your edit there got reverted after my report here, and the fact that you got little to no support for your defenses (like incorrectly invoking CITEVAR) would have made you more cautious, but apparently not. Fram (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fram is now edit warring at Moksha (Jainism). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can explain how your version, which had a.o. a link to a version of the book from a different year and with a different ISBN than the one template cite Q showed, is better than mine where this was corrected? (And of course, it takes at least two people to edit war). Fram (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article precisely once; you have made the same edit, twice. Who, other than you, is edit warring? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted, I rereverted. Mine improved, yours made worse. Anyway, from WP:EDITWAR: "An edit war (About this sound listen (help·info)) occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." and "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring". We have both overridden each other's contributions only once, we have both restored our preferred version only once, so technically no edit warring even happened here. So, again, before you make accusations, first read and understand the policy or guideline you are invoking. And before you do even that much, first see whether you are actually improving the result for our readers, or whether the edit you oppose is actually better. In both cases (the one that started this discussion, and this one), the version you reverted to was demonstrably worse (in content and layout) than the one you objected against. Fram (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further examination shows Fram's claims in defence of his edits to Moksha (Jainism) to be false. The work linked to - as https://books.google.co.in/books?id=X8iAAgAAQBAJ - is not, as he claims, the eBook, but a digital copy of the 2002 paper edition carrying on its copyright page (unnumbered, but indexed as page iv by Google]) the ISBN (for the paperback) used by Cite Q (and that for the hardback - it's common practice for such works to be printed as one, and simply bound in different covers), but not the one inserted in his edit, that of the eBook. The version linked to by Cite Q also says, again on its copyright page "This edition published 2002 by Routledge", whereas the eBook was indeed published in 2003. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cease and desist

ENOUGH. Fram and Andy, I respect you both, but your conduct here is not making either of your cases better. It was painfully obvious that you had a conflict after the first few posts, and continually bickering is pointless. I highly suggest that you a) cease changing/reverting/reversing each other's edits, and b) stop posting on this thread, until such time as allows for uninvolved editors to actually weigh in on the matter (i.e. "knock it off, both of you"). There is plenty of evidence for a decision of some manner to be made, and further back-and-forth is likely going to border on disruptive editing. Primefac (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding the evidence of the above section as "Pointless back-and-forth bickering between Fram and Andy" is not really helping though, it is not really a text inviting anyway to take a look at the repeated problematic behaviour by Pigsonthewing. Plus; in the first section he tried to invoke "citevar" as justification, only to get told by, well, everyone that citevar didn't support his position. Now he's trying the same with "editwar". Responding to such allegations may seem like "pointless back-and-forth bickering" to you, but spelling out the actual policy or guideline in reply to incorrect accusations seems hardly pointless to me. Fram (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your point regarding my {{cot}} is noted, and I have amended the notice. My point is still valid, however - we all know there's an issue. Let us actually discuss it without either of you making it worse. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fram (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Cite Q template deletion discussion

See: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q

Multiple people above have asked if there is a deletion discussion. I'll provide an unbiased ping everyone in this discussion: User:Pigsonthewing User:Fram User:Sitush User:RexxS User:Only in death User:Giants2008 User:Black Kite User:David Eppstein User:Rhododendrites User:Agathoclea User:Nyttend Alsee (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had a slow edit conflict with user:Primefac. Adding ping to avoid any appearance that I left them out of the pings above. Alsee (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by Rockypedia

Comments include, "Why are you lying about that?" here; "your lies", "Your main motivation in this RfC ...", "If you had the balls to admit why you're really pushing this ...", all found in talk page here. Rockypedia has now said "So I'm going to bow out now and let someone else handle your lies ..." but I thought if someone in authority talkted to him it might do some good.

Context is a section in 2017 Berkeley protests about a lefty demonstrator woman who was punched out by a neo-nazi leader, whose supporters (the neo-nazi's) then doxxed her and revealed very personal information about her. Rockypedia seems to think I am in league with her right-wing supporters. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BoogaLouie (talk) has persisted for the past few weeks in trying to add the name of a woman doxxed by white supremacists to the Berkeley protests article. Those edits are clear evidence that he's pushing a POV found only on alt-right and white supremacist blogs and forums, all while he feigns innocence and claims he's just trying to add relevant information to the article, even though numerous editors have warned him about his behavior. Per WP:DUCK, I make no apologies about clearly stating, in his latest attempt (an RfC), what his real motivations are, and I want everyone that sees his RfC to know it. There's no room here for insinuating good faith while his real objective is exactly the same as those of the white nationalists and white supremacists that have already doxxed that woman all over the Internet. That's all I have to say. Rockypedia (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure even if I am all these bad things it doesn't excuse personal attacks, but I will explain my case anyway:

While it is true I did include citations (I think 2) from sites doxxing her (my edit said that the sites were doxxing her and the cites were sources. None the personal information from the sites was included in my edit of the article), that I reverted a deletion of my edit once and the edit included her name and the cites, and that I got no support from editors in the talk page — some of these other claims are delusional. I am not attempting to push some alt-right and white supremacist POV, but pointing out that Snopes found their claims false. The woman's name can be found in a number of WP:RS sources. In any case I am doing a RfC on the issue of including her name and will abide by the results. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of any rights or wrongs of this case, it does need to be stated that Rockypedia does not have a good history on Wikipedia. Reference should be made to his obscene comments to edits on the Ted Bundy article and his "contribution" history, some of which are correct - but made in entirely the wrong manner. Let's please contribute and comment constructively. David J Johnson (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a drive-by WP:BATTLEGROUND edit by David J Johnson. Notice that he's never edited the Berkeley protest article, but is apparently stalking me in retaliation for two RfC's that I started after he edit-warred on the Ted Bundy article. Note also that both RfC's did not come out the way he wanted them to, and he's apparently now seeking revenge by weighing in here in an attempt to smear me. Rockypedia (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"an attempt to smear me" — now see, this is the problem. Personal attacks. They're not allowed in wikipedia. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My contribution here was simply to alert the community to Rockypedia's previous attitude when "contributing" to the encyclopedia. I believe the WP:BATTLEGROUND tag is more appropriate to Rockypedia's history. Nor have I engaged in "edit warring". As for the accusation of "stalking", I have more important tasks than that, it is just that this page is on my personal Watchlist. This users comment is another of his(?) personal attacks on other editors. I have no further comment to make. David J Johnson (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockypedia: WP:DUCK is about behavioral evidence in sock puppetry cases. It doesn't give you the right to call someone a liar. If you think someone is behaving disruptively, file a complaint here (with evidence in the form of diffs). @BoogaLouie: don't link to attack sites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To further add to that second point: just because something is in WP:RS doesn't mean that we should include it, especially if it's something like the name of a private citizen who was doxxed. My take on BLP here is to use common sense and err on the side of non-inclusion. ansh 666 21:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:DUCK only applies to sockpuppets, fine. What policy would you cite after you saw these edits? Five of them had to be redacted by admins - five! - and in this RfC, BoogaLouie is attempting to add the exact same information that was redacted, information that is currently only propogated by white supremacist blogs and forums. You tell me - what do you make of that? Does that look like editing in good faith to you? Rockypedia (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about personal attacks but I think I better defend myself:

"Five of them had to be redacted by admins".

I made an edit, cleaned it up it, it was deleted. Made my case in the talk page and restored my edit, that was deleted (that's 3 redacted edits). On the talk page I think I added a proposed revision but I can't remember and now it's scrubbed. But in the two talk page edits I agreed to not include the cites attacking the unnamed woman that were in my earlier edits. (see here where I say: "While I think the two "unusable sources" that Grayfell opposes are legit , I propose eliminating them but leaving snopes, cbs, ny times and mother jones citations about the antifa girl." It's dated about the same time (around 23:00, 23 August 2017) as the scrubbed edits. The "unusable sources" are the rightwing sites attacking the antifa girl that -- I thought -- were legit as use for sources demonstrating that the antifa girl was being doxxed.) Why were these scrubbed? They mentioned the woman's name.

"BoogaLouie is attempting to add the exact same information that was redacted, information that is currently only propogated by white supremacist blogs and forums",

this is simply not true! See for yourself in my RfC here. I include the white supremecist claim only along with the scopes article that rates it "not true". I have explained it to Rockypedia several times. such as here down the page a bunch of lines (".... I would further ask you how including the fact checking that debunks his defenders' claim that he was preventing the unnamed woman from throwing a deadly weapon would hurt the unnamed woman or help him in any way????")

IMHO I feel I have no choice but to keep replying to these accusations (which along with being untrue essentially accuse me of lying in the aid of neo-nazis) and it boarders on harassment. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"along with being untrue" ?? Those edits were redacted because the woman's name was in them. You started an RfC with the purpose of adding the woman's name. You have a strange definition of "untrue". Rockypedia (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was "information that is currently only propogated by white supremacist blogs and forums"? The woman has given interviews and talked to New York Times, Mother Jones where her name was used. Here name is not "currently only propogated by white supremacist blogs and forums". This is what I mean by untrue. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a another distortion of the truth (also sometimes known as a "lie") - You know full well that those sources were discussed, and none of them talked about the context that you were trying to add; ie that Nathan Domigo punched a woman carrying an explosive in a bottle, which absolutely is only propogated by white supremacist blogs and forums. But we're going in circles; this was explained to you on the article talk page, multiple times, that's why your edits were redacted, and yet you still continue to press your POV-based edits with the current RfC. Rockypedia (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further context BoogaLouie's doxxing-attempt RfC is currently running at 9 editors opposed to it, and 2 for it (including BoogaLouie himself). To quote Grayfell's excellent point in that RfC, "Your stated goal is exactly opposite to the end result of your actions, regardless of your true intentions." He's much more measured (and a lot smarter) than I am; regardless, I speak plainly and accurately when I describe what BoogaLouie is trying to do, and I'm basically saying the same thing, with less tact. Sorry for being so direct. Rockypedia (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Grayfell agrees with you. There's just the little matter of explaining how including the results of scopes fact checking would be bring an "end result" "exactly opposite" of my "stated goal". It makes no sense.--BoogaLouie (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, allow me to clarify:

Shoehorning in this Snopes article would be drawing attention to a flimsy theory fiercely championed by WP:FRINGE outlets, and tepidly rejected by everyone else. If BoogaLouie's intention is to debunk this theory, their actions significantly inflate its relative importance by drawing attention to a minor incident which led to sustained harassment. What, exactly, is this supposed to accomplish in an article about a series of protests in Berkeley, California? Playing WP:CIVILPOV games doesn't change that this is functionally abetting harassment.

I don't accept that BoogaLouie doesn't understand this, especially since multiple editors have spent weeks trying to explain it to them. It doesn't really matter, though. The end result is the same: BoogaLouie is attempting to draw dramatically more attention to a person who has been the target of a coordinated harassment campaign. This campaign started because she was punched by a white nationalist. The extremely unreliable attack sources BoogaLouie originally tried to add demonstrate a serious lapse in judgement to the point of undermining good faith. Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVILPOV, drawing attention to a flimsy theory fiercely championed by WP:FRINGE, making a serious lapse in judgement to the point of undermining good faith, ignoring the wisdom of multiple editors, playing stupid in the service of Nazis, etc. This has gotten way past complaining about a personal attack and is now a defense against charges of calculated dishonesty and Neo-Nazi sympathies. So would my proposed edit addition to the article have abetted harassment by drawing "attention to a flimsy theory"? or undermined it? Read it below and decide for yourself.

The proposed edit is similar to what I originally added to the article and the whole idea was recently voted down as a RfC. I think the no votes were in error but I'm not going to contest the decision. Now I'm just trying to defend my reputation against Grayfell and Rockpedia.

(note: the proposed edit adds to this April 15 section of 2017 Berkeley protests - article. Only two paragraphs -- "Within a short time after ..." and "Supporters of Nathan Damigo ..." -- posted below are proposed additions, the rest are already in the article)

During the event, Nathan Damigo—a 30-year-old California State University, Stanislaus student and the founder of the white supremacist group Identity Evropa—punched a woman in the face (later identified as[name deleted])^[1] and then ran into the crowd. The attack was captured on video and prompted calls for Damigo's arrest or expulsion.^[2]^[3]

Within a short time after the attack [name deleted] was "doxxed" by supporters of Damigo and the rally who sent "more than 1,500" harassing or threatening messages to her and publicized her home address and her parents contact information.^[1]^[4]

Supporters of Nathan Damigo accused her of "holding an explosive device made from a glass bottle" and maintain Damigo prevented her from throwing it when she was punched, however Snopes factchecking site found [name deleted] was not arrested over the incident, that observers found no M80s being stuffed inside glass bottles at the rally, and that [name deleted]'s hands were empty at the time she was punched by Damigo in the publicized images, and no indication of anything in a bottle [name deleted] was holding when Damigo punched her earlier in the melee.^[5]

Cal State Stanislaus stated that that they would investigate Damigo.^[3]

References

^ ^a ^b Bauer, Shane (27 April 2017). "A Punch in the Face Was Just the Start of the Alt-Right's Attack on a Berkeley Protester". Retrieved 20 August 2017.
^ Sheffield, Matthew. "Trolling for a race war: Neo-Nazis are trying to bait leftist "antifa" activists into violence — and radicalize white people". Salon. Retrieved May 27, 2017.
^ ^a ^b Branson-Potts, Hailey (April 17, 2017). "Cal State Stanislaus to investigate white supremacist student who punched woman in Berkeley melee". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved April 17, 2017. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
^ "Woman seen getting punched in viral video speaks out". CBS NEWS. 18 April 2017. Retrieved 30 AUgust 2017. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
^ "Was a Protester Throwing Explosives Into a Berkeley Crowd Before She Was Punched?". snopes. Retrieved 30 August 2017.

Inclusion of this much on the incident in question strikes me as uncalled for and tangential. It seems kind of shoehorning in WP:BLP1E in to a more notable article. Inclusion of the name of the woman in question strikes me as vile. Dumuzid (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockypedia: Please read, understand and consider WP:AGF; @BoogaLouie: Please read, understand and consider WP:UNDUE. Paul August ☎ 18:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TPTB's agenda on article(s related to) FC Steaua București

This user is constantly altering said article (history) deleting valid info supported by valid references and adding info based solely on a fan site (http://www.steaualibera.com) and photographed (original?) documents [62] and [63]. This not only violates the WP:NOR principle, I also am not sure the images are even real – if you reverse search them you'll find they are hosted only on yellow press sites at best. Yet the user manages to juggle the Wikipedia policies and recently obtained blocking of one of the users that pointed to the problem many many times. On Romanian Wikipedia, administrators were more vigilant and protected ro:FCSB and ro:CSA Steaua București (fotbal) without long ceremonies when it became clear that TPTB has an agenda. Please consider protecting the article for some period so that TPTB is stopped. Thank you. Gikü (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CC @Ymblanter: @Andrei Stroe:. Gikü (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really care who is right and who is wrong here, but the user I blocked reverted carelessly without explaining theor position (they added multiple talk page protected edit requests which were all rejected and they were reverted by multiple users).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not true. It's true that I linked a lot of references to that website, but that's only because the website hosts those documents and it's easier for me to find them. One of the documents in question is a court ruling. It's a scanned document. Those guys are the onlyones who have the entire thing. You can find the document here: http://www.steaualibera.com/2017/06/07/exclusivitatea-motivarea-deciziei-din-dosarul-numele-steaua/ The Romanian press posted parts of the document but not the entire thing. If you want, I can link to them as well, but the sources are not as complete as that full document. Here is one of them: http://www.ziare.com/fcsb/stiri-fcsb/exclusiv-avem-motivarea-curtii-de-apel-iata-de-ce-a-fost-obligat-becali-sa-schimbe-numele-echipei-1467840 The documents in question are original documents. In this one https://images.gsp.ro/usr/thumbs/thumb_588_x_379/2017/01/25/790860-762160-rkx4017-gigi-becali-acte-certificat-de-identitate-sportiva.jpg you can see the FC Fcsb owner holding the team's birth certificate. This sports certificate shows that his team was founded in 2003. Additionally, the people who edit the FC Steaua Bucuresti page clearly have their own agenda and are only looking to create confusion. Take, for example, the year the team was founded. Right now it says that the team was founded on July 7 1947. The people editing this page claim that it's a page about Steaua Bucharest, the Romanian football team that won the European Champions Cup in 1986. However, that team was founded on June 7 1947. The people editing the page claim to know what they're doing. But they clearly don't. No Romanian football team was founded on July 7 1947. The fact that they make such a big mistake clearly shows that they either have no idea what they're doing or that they just want to make fun of a certain team and create confusion. I am going to say this one last time. The Romanian court forbade FC Fcsb to use the names Steaua, Steaua Bucuresti or any other name that may let someone believe that that team is Steaua Bucharest. Here's a link to the Romanian Ministry of Justice website, where you can clearly see that FC Fcsb has no right to use the name Steaua Bucharest: http://portal.just.ro/2/SitePages/Dosar.aspx?id_dosar=300000000660029&id_inst=2 I am trying to help wikipedia and tell the truth. If someone says that I'm lying, then let him bring some solid proof to back that up. As for the user Taras bulba 47, who only created his account just to vandalize the CSA Steaua Bucuresti (football) page and who evidently asked his friend to intervine on his behalf, the guy only wrote insults on the page, nothing more. You can check it out for yourselves. That's about it from me. - TPTB (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TPTB is making his or her own interpretations based on primary sources published only on some channels that are dubious at best. For instance, claiming that a "Certificat de identitate sportivă" is the "birth certificate" of the team is ridiculous: this a merely a document that states a certain company is registered as practicing a certain sport. In Romania, they have only been issued since 2001 based on a law that had been passed the previous year, so no team will have one that is older; and it also absolutely cannot cover cases such as the shift that happened there in the 1990s, when state-owned "amateur" clubs (all Eastern European clubs before that time were state-owned) turned privately-owned professional clubs. For this purpose, a commercial entity had to be created, and the assets had to be transferred from the state to the privately-owned company. So of course the new company is registered in the 1990s or the 2000s, but the teams they manage go back a long time before. The vandalism accusation against Taras bulba 47 is also far-fetched: I found no diff where s/he wrote any insults or personal attacks. I can see, however, what Ymblanter takes to be disruptive editing, and that Taras bulba 47 also looks like s/he has an agenda. Sliding on the disruptive editing slope is something that happens a lot to newcomers, and in this case it seems to have happened to both users. Discussion is the key. I haven't had interactions with Taras bulba 47 on ro.wp, but my and Giku's experience there with TPTB is that we're talking to someone who's here to fight a WP:BATTLE.- Andrei (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The thing you said above is a common mistake in Romania. Those certificates are not given to companies, but to sports clubs. A company may own a club and manage it, and it can get one of those certificates if it does. But, if it does not own a sports club, then it will definitely not get one. The deal with FC Fcsb's sports certificate is that it was issued at the same time when the team was founded. Becali, the guy pulling the strings at FC Fcsb, claims that he purchased the Steaua Bucharest football team. However, that team already had a sports certificate in 2003. Had Becali purchased the team, he would have also acquired its certificate and he wouldn't have needed to ask for a new one. The fact that FC Fcsb's certificate was issued in 2003 and it existed at the same time as Steaua's sports certificate shows pretty clearly that the two are distinct entities. This is why FC Fcsb lost the right to use the Steaua Bucharest brand and name. So yeah. I'm here to fight a battle. I want wikipedia to show the truth. Is that a problem? Or am I supposed to just accept lies just because some of you are too lazy to do proper research? As for Taras bulba 47, it's really easy to go to the CSA Steaua Bucuresti (football) page and look at some of the edits made there within the past 24 hours. You'll find words such as "muie talpan"("fuck Talpan" - Talpan is the legal officer who won the lawsuits against FC Fcsb on behalf of Steaua Bucharest), but that's probably not vandalism in your opinion, right? - TPTB (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could show respect to the dozen of people involved in the discussions and refrain from editing the page until the issues are settled. Ideally the page should be fully protected so nobody edits until consensus but it looks like admins are not in a hurry. Gikü (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What issue are you talking about. Everything is already settled. The Romanian Court of Appeals already decided the matter. They said that FC fcsb is not Steaua, that it can't use the Steaua name. It's been 9 months since the decision was final and the page still shows the name Steaua Bucuresti, because some of you are supporters of FC Fcsb and refuse to change it. - TPTB (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's settled for you. There are people disagreeing. Please wait for the consensus. Gikü (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's settled. Period. There's no more debate. FC Fcsb is not allowed to use the Steaua Bucharest name anymore. It is not allowed to use the Steaua Brand anymore. This is what's settled. The fact that some people don't want to respect and obey the laws in Romania shouldn't be used as an excuse to write fake articles on wikipedia. And you will edit this page sooner or later. Whether you like it or not. Because FC fcsb's days are numbered. If they lose one more lawsuit, they're done. They will be shut down. - TPTB (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: : my apologies for the repeated modification requests. I understand these requests must be better edited and documented. I have to mention that all my requests were made in an attempt to roll-back the destructive changes made by TPTB. The majority of them were "undos" of his changes. Looking at his recent contributions it's obvious that he has an agenda (please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TPTB ). Since yesterday he kept on modifying articles relating to FCSB (formerly called Steaua Bucuresti) football team. I will not go into details now, I will do it on the articles' talk pages, but I am kindly making this request again: please protect pages related tot Steaua Bucuresti and only allow modifications after a careful review has verified all the information. It's painful to see how administrators have allowed TPTB to alter the truth for almost two weeks! The articles I think require a careful protection and watch are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steaua https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSA_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti_(football)

The latter misrepresents the reality by mentioning the football team created in 2017, with no affiliation to FRF (Romanian Football Federation) or UEFA, has 21 national titles :) Again, I will not go into details here but please: put a stop to this! Taras bulba 47 (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gikü, @Andrei Stroe: Thank you for bringing this to the English noticeboard. Taras bulba 47 (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@TPTB:: I really don't think there's a point engaging in this conversation with you. Your lies have spread even here on the noticeboard. I quote <<the guy only wrote insults on the page, nothing more.>> and <<You'll find words such as "muie talpan"("fuck Talpan" - Talpan is the legal officer who won the lawsuits against FC Fcsb on behalf of Steaua Bucharest), but that's probably not vandalism in your opinion, right?>> just to mention some of your blatant lies. I made no such comments and this is very easily verifiable! I cannot comprehend why you'd even bother to lie like this. Taras bulba 47 (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heart Songs Corporation

Could someone have a look at this page... I noticed an edit removing content claiming that it was slanderous - and the content does appear to have been added recently by an IP. I reverted the page to what appears to be the last good version, but if someone could check my work that would be great. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Home Lander: I think that was the right thing to do as one of the refs was linking to a web page with defamatory allegations. But that article is an AfD candidate if ever I saw one! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Home Lander: Good work, I've added a COI tag as one of the editors is clearly the CEO. I don't know if it should be deleted or not. I'll leave that to someone who knows. Jschnur (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Malcolmxl5 and Jschnur. I agree on the deletion and have PROD-ed the page for now. Home Lander (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing by User:Videogameplayer99

Despite repeated warnings, User:Videogameplayer99 continues to create a large number of non notable video game articles solely based on their appearance in directories like Mobygames. Some are notable but most of them aren't. I don't doubt that it's a good faith attempt but WP:COMPETENCE is based on more than that, and they have not made an effort to learn Wikipedia guidelines about notability despite many, many deleted articles.

See also: Contributions _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that they've blanked their own pages and applied G7 on them. I wouldn't have the slightest idea why they would do such a thing other than this ANI report. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jd22292: It was in response to this report, as said on my talk page. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles copied from Wikia

I've been dealing with a certain sockmaster, Ctway, for a few years now. To give a brief summary, they create tons of low-quality, poorly sourced, and factually suspect articles about firearms and sometimes other military equipment. During the most recent round of emptying the sock drawer and AfDing their creations, Icewhiz found that several articles that I'd nominated were copied from a Wikia wiki. Investigating further, I found that Ctway's articles were often (but not always) created or greatly expanded by a user there named Cutaway (CuTaWAY) and then copied over nearly exactly (excluding images, which I now realize are often added as hyperlinks instead of a gallery) - or occasionally the other way around. For example, BSA Autorifle was worked on by Cutaway in 2016, then copied over verbatim to BSA Autorifle in one edit this year by a Ctway sock. I did a bit more digging, and the second article I looked at (Union Automatic Revolver) from the original sock report was created the same day on both wikis, with identical content: en-wiki and guns.wikia on 12 August 2010. Given that Cutaway was created on guns.wikia in 2008 and the first account mentioned in the SPI was created in 2009 though not blocked/confirmed for lack of CU data, the issues probably go back at least that far (and now I'm marvelling at how coincidental it is that Ctway was the account that the SPI was filed under, and wondering if the filer who is sadly now inactive knew about all of this at the time). Cutaway also has a comment on their Message Wall (aka talk page) from a guns.wikia admin reminding them to not copy articles from Wikipedia; that admin seems to have an active account here as well, Grunty89, so I'll invite him to comment too. It would probably also be nice if there was a way for Cutaway to participate in this discussion, but they probably don't have an active sock yet after the last batch was whacked, so meh.

So, after all that, the question is: is copying content from Wikia, which I believe shares the same CC-by-SA 3.0 license with Wikipedia, okay, or should it be treated as any other copyvio? Some of it seems to be copying their own work between wikis, so there isn't necessarily even an issue regarding maintaining attribution, but at the same time many of them have other contributors on Wikia or here. I wouldn't want to have to go through the probably thousands of articles these socks have created looking for possible copyvio to delete, but I feel like it may unfortunately be necessary. ansh 666 08:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My personal understanding is that it is kosher to copy/replicate one's own work (as the creator retains the copyright), but not kosher to copy someone else's (even on-wiki - you need a copy-right edit summary when copying substantial amounts of text between on-wiki articles). How you go about proving the sock's instance on Wikipedia is the same as on Wikia (though circumstantial evidence would seem to imply this at least for some of these copies) - is a different matter. Note that in some instances, e.g. BSA Autorifle - other users (in this case AugFC in 2015) - worked on the article in addition to Cutaway (so in this case, it is possibly a copyvio regarding content from AugFC if text survived). I do however, believe, that if it CC-by-SA-3.0 we don't have to blank - just attribute (e.g. dummy edit) - but not 100% sure.Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you are not sure then it could be better to discuss at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My fairly uninformed understanding is that if Wikia shares the same license as Wikipedia, then it's okay to copy as long as the original contribution is attributed, which can be done after the fact with a template on the article's talk page. Essentially follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Copying from other Wikimedia projects, except you'll probably have to replace any attribution templates with a simple link to the source edit on the Wikia project. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I normally do is add a blurb at the bottom like this example:

Content in this article was copied from Simba the King Lion at Mondo World Wikia, which is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 (Unported) (CC-BY-SA 3.0) license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm...that's good to know, though the thought of going through the hundreds if not thousands of these articles is...terrifying, to say the least. Though at least I think we've now found a potentially permanent point of contact with them; communication in the past has been fairly difficult because they tend to use so many throwaways. ansh 666 09:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain why it's not sufficient to simply name the CC-licensed source you're copying from in the edit summary as you bring the material in? E Eng 11:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to be more specific to link the revision and be clear somewhere where it can be seen (edit summ or a talk page template) that the material was copied from (url to diff at Wikia), but that's effectively it for CC-BY licensed material. --MASEM (t) 12:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - We do need to be careful with Wikia content. While the overwhelming majority of Wikia wikis are licensed under CC-BY-SA, there are some that have opted for different licensing (usually CC-BY-NC-SA), which I believe is incompatible with Wikipedia's license. If I am mistaken about that, please correct me, but [64] doesn't list either license as compatible with the other, so I am currently operating under the assumption that they are not. Cthomas3 (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good to know. Lucky (or unlucky) for us, guns.wikia uses CC-BY-SA. ansh 666 23:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So this discussion leads me to another question: is WP:CCI a good place to go to get more eyes on and deal with this type of thing? Wikipedia:Copyright problems as Emir suggests seems to be for single articles. ansh 666 23:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A35821361 is NOTHERE

Hello, this is pretty much my first time posting at ANI. Basically, A35821361 seems to be only here to criticise the Baha'i Faith and to attack it. His response to being blocked for edit warring was to blame the "members of the Baha'i Faith" for it. He also complained about how "While 36 hours is a brief time to be banned, this complaint is a pattern of intimidation by members of the Bahá'í Faith on those who wish to shed light on historically accuracy, which is not always the narrative sanctioned by the Bahá'í Administrative Order" -- quote from the diff I've linked to, [65], I humbly submit this editor is clearly NOTHERE. I'm sorry for how poor my post looks...just not the best at this.79.66.4.79 (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your diff doesn't work, and I can't figure out what you intended. Please create a diff the way it says here. Also, it might be useful to mention which article he was edit warring on. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Fixed the diff, and A35821361 was edit-warring on the Baha'i Faith page. 79.66.4.79 (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A diff from May is not indicative of a current problem. However, poking into User:A35821361's contrib history, I'm not sure WP:NOTHERE is the right issue, but it does look like A35821361 is hostile to Baha'i, and is prone to edit-warring. I don't want to step into this mess, but think some admin or another should. They should probably also notify the user. Argyriou (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank Argyriou (talk) for mentioning my username here, otherwise I would have no inkling that this discussion was underway. In any case, it is true that I frequently contribute to topics related to the Bahá'í Faith. As my contributions are sourced from objective, third-party references they are not always in concordance with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá'í Administrative Order. This has often led to the reversion of these contributions and allegations that they are somehow "hostile," when in fact they are unbiased. If you read the continuation of the quote which 79.66.4.79 (talk) has linked to above, it continues, "In fact, this intimidation has led several prominent academics to leave or be ex-communicated by the Bahá'í Administrative Order (see Juan Cole, Abbas Amanat, Denis MacEoin, and Ehsan Yarshater)." It saddens me that these tactics are now attempted in Wikipedia. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a wikipedia contributor, but just thought i'd chime in to say that some of your first contributions included an entirely uncited claim that Baha'u'llah sold slaves to pay off debts with zero sources, neutral or hostile, given. Getting better at finding citations to support an editorial agenda does not make that editorial agenda cease to exist. None of those academics was actually excommunicated or claimed to have been excommunicated, the closest thing would be Juan Cole claiming to have been threatened with excommunication (with the only source for that claim being Cole himself).UrielvIII (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a Wikipedia editor", indeed, considering that was your first edit. How did you find your way here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I lurk pages I'm interested in, (feel I don't have the writing/citing ability to contribute up to wiki standards though), user in question is a fairly active contributor in a lot of them so I've been lurking his contribution log as well (apologies if that's against wikipedia policy. Feel free to delete if it is).UrielvIII (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A35 certainly seems to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I have a theory as to why he so antagonistic to Baha'i, but that would be casting aspersions. Suggest a topic ban. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP you're using began editing today, but you've been around: you know about WP:casting aspersions, for instance. If you have an account your normally edit with, you should have filed this complaint with that account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Withdrawn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I previously brought this up at the noticeboard here and got no response. I later tried more specific complaints about biographies of living persons here and here, also with no response. I think A35821361 was successful at scaring away any admins from looking past the surface by simply declaring himself to be unbiased. Anyone looking through edits and talk pages would recognize deception, but that takes time. The edit warring on biographies of living persons is still ongoing. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome anyone to look at my edit and contribution history to Wikipedia, and compare it to the edit and contribution history of other editors on the same articles. Aside from being sourced from objective, third party sources, my edits and contributions are entirely compliant with the guidelines of Wikipedia. On the other hand, one should consider what the objectives of some of the other editors are. For example, Cuñado ☼ - Talk has falsely accused me of sockpuppetry and called me a "deceitful attacker" on my talk page. More recently, there has been systematic reversions and deletions to the biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice, the supreme governing institution of the Bahá'í Faith whose decisions are deemed infallible by believers. The reason given for these reversions and deletions are that the members of the Universal House of Justice lack notability, when in fact in addition to their religious service to the Bahá'í Administrative Order many these individuals have led successful careers as academics, authors, artists, actors, and the heads of award-winning NGOs. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

This is comical. If there is an admin listening I'd be happy to lay out in detail why A35821361's last comment is deception (maybe delusion?) in line with how he has behaved for the last 9 months. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thornton Chase may be of interest. Smkolins (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the article for Thornton Chase and the discussion for the AfD is demonstrative. Thornton Chase was an insurance salesman and is only covered in subjects relating to his position as the first convert to the Bahá’í Faith in the United States to have remained a Bahá’í. He does not pass any other notability guideline. None of the coverage is independent, as it all comes from Bahá’í sources, and priod to the AfD proposal almost entirely from one book written by a Bahá’í. This contrasts sharply with the articles of the members of Universal House of Justice members that have been systematically deleted, which were sourced from multiple different sources regarding various accomplishments of the individuals covered in their respective articles. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Simply false. The biographies were stuffed with references that don't mention the person. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory look at Thornton Chase's article shows citations from a large number of independent newspapers. A skim of the contents of the article also shows that it covers his notable service in the Civil War. (although from the talk page these may have been added recently). By contrast the article for one House of Justice member, Stephen Birkland, contains citations exclusively from either Baha'i sources or Juan Cole, a former Baha'i who leveled accusations of misconduct against Birkland (the article that is not by a Baha'i or Cole only mentions Birkland by citing Cole's statements). Neither of those sources are neutral third parties. In any case the article only contains three paragraphs and could easily be merged into a larger article which is why I assume it would have been deleted (although I can't say that for certain) UrielvIII (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair the Chase article has been developed a ton since it was nominated. But A35821361's skills as a researcher and knowledge are far from mundane. I didn't have to look hard at all for many obvious third party sources. And that's aside from simply looking at the footnotes of Dr. Stockman's research. A35821361 didn't bother while he/she is perfectly willing to spend a great deal of time researching very obscure people for possible personal relationships to other things and beyond. In short he'd rather delete the article on Chase and work on some of these others even if many people agree that Chase is notable and the others several people have found unfounded. Smkolins (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's his prerogative to work on whatever he wants. There is nothing wrong with nominating for deletion. BTW, great job improving the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've always tried to research up rather than dismiss down. It's odd to me that he creates the Robert Stockman article and then dismisses a key subject of Stockman's research for decades. Smkolins (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks by Bobo192 at AfD discussions

Over the past couple of weeks, there have been a couple of articles about cricketers that have been taken to AfD; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer). During these, Bobo192 (hereafter referred to as Bobo, as displayed in signature) has repeatedly made assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. First, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston:

Against Premeditated Chaos Bobo repeatedly called this user a "vandal". [66] [67]
Kept commenting over and over with the same things and accusing others of acting like children, for merely opposing his point of view. [68]
Then, across both AfDs harrassing Reyk, saying that their "opinion is invalidated" [69], that they were having a "childish temper tantrum" [70] and accusing Reyk of "baiting" people [71].
At the second of these discussions, Bobo also interacted with BlackJack, making demeaning comments about the AfDs and the people taking part in them; "How long has this lasted without having been argued with on this petty a level?", "an article is therefore deleted based on undefined "rules of thumb" and the lack of "basic details" - when the article so painfully obviously passes WP:CRIN criteria", "Note how something as idiotically woolly and contradictory as WP:GNG didn't exist back then as an apparently legitimate delete vote criterion".

For the sake of clarity, I !voted against Bobo in one discussion, and with him in the other. I feel that in these AfDs, Bobo struggles to debate without resorting to personal attacks and demeaning comments. Harrias ^talk 18:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As regards Whitehead, the nominator has admitted that he misunderstood the notability guideline and has removed his key reason (i.e., non-compliance) for raising the AfD. Bobo was certainly right to defend the guideline in that case because the subject is undeniably notable. Although I do not think Cranston should be deleted, I admit it is much more borderline. In my opinion, Bobo has been provoked by the attitude of Reyk whom I personally think crosses the WP:NOTHERE line – he was reported to ANI earlier this year, by Lugnuts for that very reason. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I agree that Bobo is not taking the existence of opposing views well at all. There's no doubt that he's been badgering participants in those AfD's and trying to bait me in particular into an outburst. I'm not sure why he's singled me out and, though I've made an effort to remain completely civil in the face of this provocation, I do not appreciate being called a liar and a hypocrite. As for an administrative remedy, I would suggest limiting this user to one !vote on individual cricket-related AfDs, and no replies, for a couple of months. It may be that his behaviour will improve once he's accepted that other opinions can legitimately exist. I suggest it's even time to examine WikiProject Cricket as a whole; it's easily the most toxic place on Wikipedia (at least since the ARS faded into obscurity), with a lot of OWNership issues and the same ultra-defensive rhetoric we've seen here. I can think of at least two editors of that WikiProject with the same behavioural issues. Reyk _YO! 19:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you have a grudge against WP:CRIC which has been evident in comments made by you in at least three AfDs. Your opposition to WP:CRIN, our notability guideline which is part of WP:NSPORTS is worryingly unreasonable, given its wide acceptance by the vast majority of editors and administrators. This is why you are perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be NOTHERE – our impression is that you are trying to disrupt our project. Comments like "easily the most toxic place on Wikipedia" are bang out of order and I challenge you to provide a list of all the ownership issues you allege. Furthermore, who are the "at least two" CRIC members? Jack | ^{talk page} 19:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully asking the same question. Who are the "at least two" members with "behavioural issues"? I refuse to descend into namecalling but at the end of the day, if you make a claim and you can't back it up, then the claim is invalid. If you are unable to provide their names here and now, especially in a conversation where I am attempting to remain as rational as possible under questioning, then I suggest you remove this accusation. Bobo . 10:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only person I can remember ever claiming I'm WP:NOTHERE to edit the encyclopedia is you. You've also previously called me a meatpuppet of User:StAnselm, round about the time you were vilifying his religion because he disagreed with you. And, of course, anyone looking at my edit history can see at a glance that the claim of being WP:NOTHERE is false. Reyk _YO! 19:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vilifying his religion? That's a new one. Even I'm not aware that I did that... evidence please. Bobo . 20:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go: User_talk:StAnselm/2015b#Apology_demanded. Reyk _YO! 20:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I thought you were referring to me. Sorry. Bobo . 20:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing to do with "opposing views". This is to do with randomly choosing a cricketer with a single first-class appearance, saying "I don't like", and immediately tagging an article which, somehow, has survived on the site for nine years, with an AfD notice. There are thousands of other WP:CRIC articles that any other user could tag for exactly the same reason. Every single similar AfD discussion since the writing of WP:CRIN has been an utter waste of time. Bobo . 20:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start... ayyy caramba. From the top.

Yes. As I stated on that page, the entry for Church of Jesus Christ Elvis looks like the kind of CSD G1 nonsense created by bored schoolchildren when their teacher's back is turned. I still don't believe this to be false, and I still cannot believe this is anything other than BJAODN vandalism. I considered the fact that this user even pointed out that they posted it on that very AfD discussion to be... to use a polite term, clumsy.
My "treated like children" comment actually referred to my wish to ask genuine questions relating to notability criteria and people's continued unwillingness and/or inability to answer, having initially criticized my own judgment.
Generally speaking, if someone has an opinion they stick to it. I was asking for genuine responses to genuine questions and didn't receive a single one. I endeavoured a courtesy ping to the person who asked the question to be the best way to get them to see the answer. Perhaps the need to ping didn't exist. I purely wanted to make sure that the page came up again when I visited. This was more for my own purposes so that I could follow my own comments on an AfD.
If someone is against the idea of "a single game", then what is the alternate solution? "I find that this is a problem" is not a valid complaint. "I find that this is a problem and here is a solution I propose given my knowledge on the subject", is. The reason for my ping was more for my own benefit. If this was unnecessary, then I am genuinely sorry.
If you say, "Please stop badgering!" then this feels like an affront to the user in question. And, by claiming themselves that I "may" [only have] "be[en] badgering", is a very embarrassing climbdown, having set out to make me feel two inches tall. Which was the original intent, I guess, so, job done. If the user in question had simply said, "Would you please consider rephrasing your comment?", I may have done so without a second thought.
You and I both know that people have been sending articles similar to that of Tom Cranston to AfD without knowing the first thing about cricket, or the generally accepted notability guideline which has existed since I have been a Wikipedian, a single FC appearance is satisfactory. I always thought that as long as these criteria were met, then any complaints of the style, "but I disagree with the article because..." when it clearly meets WP guidelines, are not only unnecessary, but time-wasting.
GNG was never cited as a deletion reasoning back when the S. Perera article was initially deleted. In that debate or any other. I still don't understand how an incredibly woolly-phrased guideline holds any sway when it is patently obvious that the article passes SNG requirements. Doesn't that make all the "Delete 'cuz GNG" comments look a tad suspicious? Bobo . 19:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer):

"On the evidence we have access to online, the player does not meet GNG, as there is no significant coverage, what we have is purely statistical." (me)
"Yes, I know at the end of the day WP:GNG trumps them all..." (you, Bobo)
"This does not pass WP:NSPORT which clearly says "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline."" (StAnselm)

As you can see, GNG clearly was cited as deletion reasoning (even by yourself, a proponent of keeping the article) in the S. Perera AfD. But to be honest, that is beside the point anyway. Harrias ^talk 20:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is and will be the first and only ever time I will quote WP:GNG within a deletion discussion. I should have said, "I know that according to other people GNG trumps them all." Frankly I was unaware GNG even existed as an apparently valid reason for deletion until a week before this discussion, when people started quoting it willy-nilly... So, poor phrasing from me, I apologize. Bobo . 20:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The irony here is that I barely even contribute to AfD discussions regarding cricketers because I'm fairly sure that all parties involved are aware of the fact that we have very easy to understand criteria for article inclusion. Bobo . 20:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to make a collective apology to all in this conversation. My frustrations are being escalated by the fact that I am going through a crappy time healthwise, and the fact that I am not taking current personal life events very well. I never do. I have personal problems which cause me to escalate every single stupid little thing to a ridiculously large level. I make absolutely zero excuse for these - the fact that these two issues have coincided is, to me and, I'm sure to everyone reading this, simply an unfortunate coincidence, and, I'm sure you can understand from my point of view, a matter of infinite frustration.

I can do nothing more than promise that, as soon as these stupid petty issues have passed, I will be back to normal, strong and ready to go, ready to collaborate, fully, on a project which every single one of us has taken to so passionately over the last several years. Without meaning to deny anyone else equal credit, all of you know that I consider Jack to be a very close friend, who has helped me with so many things over the years, on and off Wiki.

I am sorry. I never meant for it to get this far. I never intended for my frustrations to manifest themselves in such an angry way. And if you choose to take this apology as plastic, then please do. But know that in spite of all this, I still feel we can collaborate strongly together on a project until we have reached every single one of our goals. Bobo . 21:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would feel better about your apology if you would withdraw your accusations that I am a vandal with some kind of history of vandalizing Wikipedia, which I clearly am not. I fully agree that the article was stupid, but 2003 was a different, and much more stupid time. The article was still live at the time of my 2004 RfA, and no one at that time (or any other) ever accused me of vandalism for posting it, despite it being proudly listed on my then-live brag page for all to see. I mentioned it in an attempt at humor/sympathy and you used it to attack me, just as you have been attacking everyone in that AfD left right and center. Apologizing means nothing if your aggressive behavior remains the same. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I was completely willing to forget that. It was only the fact that you actually pointed it out on the AfD that I had any idea it even existed... and as I say, I was completely willing to forget. I still am. Maybe this was the kind of thing that happened when we only had, what, 200,000 articles on the site? That was how many it was when I joined. Let's not forget WP:BJAODN was still rife (not that I'm connecting the two, just pointing out something which has been long forgotten in the mists of past). Times change, article notability criteria changes. Except, not for cricket articles! And it never has. Heck, I myself even created some Test cricketers, a subset of articles which we all finished rather quickly.

My point in this comment is merely to remind myself of the way things were when I first joined 13 years ago. Very different times. But I still believe I was doing nothing wrong in creating and defending these articles. The fact that I did so in such an angry way is honestly uncharacteristic. Bobo . 22:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're misremembering on purpose, but I brought it up on my talk page and only on my talk page. You are the one who accused me of having a history of vandalizing Wikipedia as a response. You are the one who then brought it up at AfD in an attempt to smear me. You are the one who was unwilling to forget it. You are the one who still has not struck the accusation on the AfD nor admitted that it was wrong here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smear you? That's a teensy bit of an exaggeration. The fact that you willingly put your foot in it, quite another matter entirely. Bobo . 23:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. So your "apology" above was just as worthless as you said it was and you don't actually care about being civil to other users. Good to know. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with my apology "being worthless". The fact is that in my 13 years on Wikipedia, sport inclusion criteria has moved on to a stage where we now have rules that are so easy to follow that a child can understand, and yet people going against those rules because the rules make them sad. Bobo . 07:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I have the slightest impression that you're interested in actually reading anything anyone here has posted, but are you at all aware of the RfC on the NSPORTS issue from this June which closed with the conclusive statement that there is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion? You keep going on and on about everyone else refusing to follow consensus-based policy because we're either dumber than children or the rules make us sad or whatever ludicrous nonsense you decide to toss out next but as I've been saying all along, consensus disagrees with you. NSPORTS < GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRIN has always been the same and not a single person has ever rationally challenged it. Bobo . 09:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could drop this but it would be hypocritical of me not to say this. Added a question above regarding the "at least two members with behavioural issues". Given that this entire thread is based on my individual frustrations, to call out "at least two" individuals to this extent and refuse to name them is cowardly. I'm sure Jack would appreciate this justification too. Let's face it, if I had made the same accusations, people would probably regard it as me getting on the offensive and making a personal attack.

Reyk, I am sad that I've had to ask this question because I really thought we had reached a point from which we could move on. It should be clear to you and PMC that I consider Jack to be one of my closest Wikipedia friends, a man who knows more about cricket than anyone else I know, and, as you have both seen, a person who is courteous to the level that he is willing to defend me much more readily than I am prepared to defend myself. Bobo . 10:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment- check out the last thread on WT:CRIC for a good example of why the wikiproject is toxic. Gossiping and badmouthing me by the three primary people making it a toxic place. Reyk _YO! 16:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that's toxic, are editors with little or no understanding of a subject area wasting everyone's time with frivolous deletion nominations. Maybe they could spend their time increasing their own knowledge-base, instead of assuming things are non-notable with their ignorance of the topic. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, Lugnuts. The problem is with the users who agree with them, causing articles like S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) to be deleted - after six years as a Wikipedia article - and for two years' worth of shenanigans to follow. Everybody who knows the slightest thing about cricket knows that S. Perera is entitled to an article. Doesn't it seem weird that it took six years for someone - anyone - to say "no like, get rid"?

Anyone who knows anything about anything knows that an article will not last on Wikipedia for six years unless its subject warrants an article... we're talking basic common sense now... Bobo . 18:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - fixed the link for you Reyk otherwise people will be directed to a nonexistent page. Bobo . 16:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse the project of containing "at least two editors of that WikiProject with the same behavioural issues", if you are unwilling or unable to mention who these people are. We have been going around in circles for nearly 24 hours and haven't really gotten anywhere.

Please answer this question at the appropriate place, the statement beginning "Respectfully asking the same question." Otherwise the conversation will be fragmented. Bobo . 16:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for closing admin. I think User:Reyk has revealed himself for what he is and should be shown the door. He is in breach of WP:NOTHERE because he seeks to disrupt constructive effort on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. His approach is confrontational and his deletion rationales are designed to twist and mislead. There is an undeniable example of this in the Whitehead AfD. His reason for deletion is "biographical article about a non-notable sports person, based on bare statistical database entries and sources so meagre that the person's full name is not even known. I think it goes without saying that WP:CRIN is way too lax in its standards if it encourages the creation of a horde of contentless microstubs like this one". The article has been expanded since then but this is the version he calls a "microstub" about a "non-notable sports person". As anyone can see, the article was a stub with an infobox and a four-line paragraph which states that Whitehead was a patron as well as a player and that he played in fourteen first-class matches, so hardly "non-notable". The bibliography shows that there are several sources, though admittedly unused before the AfD was raised. As Lugnuts said above, Reyk displays complete ignorance when making his illogical and groundless assumptions. In addition to WP:NOTHERE, I would suggest there is a WP:CIR issue too. Finally, badmouthing an entire project because he does not like us disagreeing with him is a serious breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. WP:CRIC isn't perfect but it is constructive, positive and welcoming. It is no different to any other project, no better than and certainly no worse than. Anyone who condemns an entire project as "toxic" should be expelled. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can do nothing but continue to make an honest apology. My frustration is purely down to current circumstance and I can only promise that given time, I will no longer cause the problems I have been causing. It's simply a shame that these two issues have come up at the same time that my frustrations have exacerbated themselves.

I don't think "expulsion" is the answer, Jack. There's a wonderful phrase on Wikipedia. "Drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass". I believe that anyone who mangles with inclusion criteria by openly admitting to be a deletionist and pushing their own agenda is in fear of ruining the project. There is zero logic for deletionism other than "Me no likey. Get rid. lol." Project criteria for cricket are identical to project criteria for every other competitive team sport on Wikipedia. Soccer, American football, baseball, ice hockey, basketball. Why should one article suffer for the sake of a project? There is no logical connection between believing in NPOV and believing in deletionism as a philosophy. Okay, in the deep dark mists of Wikipedia I added ECC cricketers. Austria, Belgium... I forget who else off hand.

The sad fact is that there is no logical solution to the S. Perera problem. If we are purely relying on secondary sources, the large part of me assumes that we have to treat S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) and Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) as two different cricketers. And I still believe that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) provides no valid consensus when you consider the source of the deletion votes.

Suspicious Delete 1: Me no likey. Get rid. lol. (IP address)
Suspicious Delete 2: Account for which we have zero reliable information of whether the user exists and whether the nonexistent account was ever renamed because it doesn't show up as a valid rename in the logs.

Personally I think this says it all. If two of the delete votes are "IP" and "as IP" (neither of which would hold sway in a normal AfD argument), then this invalidates the AfD conversation altogether, regardless of the addresses' opinions. Couple this with the fact that by listifying the cricketers by first-class team without providing links to articles about each player is a blatant violation of NPOV. Bobo . 23:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do we do about the fact that no matter what happens from now on, there will always be at least one Kurunegala YCC player missing? Well, there are 106 redlinks still on my players list page, let alone those who have appeared for the team since. By my reckoning, there are 29 players who have played for Kurunegala YCC who have a single first-class appearance, and 162 in total. I can update the master list if you like... sometime later, my brain is fried. Bobo . 00:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly ask that question to the other participants in this conversation as well as Jack. What shall we do about this blatant violation of NPOV, such that we are allowing some cricketers with a single first-class appearance and not others..? Bobo . 00:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of AfD delete votes at Tom Cranston:

Gave him a go. Definitely notable. But get rid anyway. Even though he meets criteria, this is inconsequential.
This cricketer definitely passes NSPORTS. But get rid anyway.
Meets criteria, but "insignificant contribution".
A single game and a listing in a statistical database are insufficient to show notability. (No. This is precisely the point of WP:CRIN...) Bobo . 00:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every single person reading this conversation can be certain of one thing. Regardless of your Wikipedia "philosophy", this and S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) will most likely end up being re-evaluated at some point in the future... Bobo . 00:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, as honest and long-term contributors to WP:CRIC, what's our next step? Bobo . 00:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that is completely and utterly false and a complete failure to characterize anybody's !vote on that page accurately. The AfD in question is linked for your perusal here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston. A far more accurate depiction of the delete !votes on that page would be that they summarily agree that the article might (barely) pass WP:CRIN or WP:NSPORTS - for examples; may scrape WP:CRIN on basis of the one match (User:Pharaoh of the Wizards) and [t]he reliable sources provided prove that the subject passes, narrowly, the requirements of WP:NSPORTS (User:Hack), but, all decidely also agree that the article does not meet WP:GNG and that the subject is non-notable - for examples; He comprehensively fails WP:GNG (User:Pharaoh of the Wizards) and fails WP:GNG, no evidence article subject has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (User:Hack). So no, nobody is saying that he is [d]efinitely notable [b]ut get rid anyway. What utter tripe. On a less sharp note; it is highly inadviseable to try and summarize opposing viewpoints when you have a decidely obvious point of view. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. This is simply a case of some people not being able to accept the existence of contrary points of view and lashing out because of it. I think it goes without saying that the above "proposal" to ban me is ridiculous, and a perfect example of the poor behaviour on the part of WP:CRIC that I've been trying to draw attention to. I'm not sure if it is intended as a genuine request to have me blocked, or merely an attempt to provoke me. If the former, User:BlackJack should start a separate subsection to make that request. If the latter, well, I'm not going to get upset if someone wants to make my point for me. Reyk _YO! 04:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between contrary points of view and having had guidelines we've stuck to for nearly ten years which have done us absolutely zero harm up until now. So in other words, we will have a complete list of every single first-class cricketer... other than one which people disagreed with? How does that work? This isn't about "contrary points of view". This is about going against very easy to understand criteria which we have held to for many years.

The fact that all three of us are agreed that the article passes WP:CRIN is proof of the fact that it's not WP:CRIC members who are the ones trying to make a point. Bobo . 07:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asking the same question down here for Reyk as I asked above. To cower away from an accusation like the fact that "at least two" WP:CRIC members have behavioural issues and to not have the cojones to tell us who they are is cowardice. Please justify this, otherwise we will slap a "citation needed" tag on it. Bobo . 07:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already answered this question above. Please stop making personal attacks. If you haven't figured out yet that I won't be baited... Sorry, but I must now concentrate on BlackJack's ban request and preposterous false accusations against me. Reyk _YO! 07:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the admin's closing rationale here is greatly amusing.

"Rules of thumb are precisely that and do not replace detailed examination of the article against wider inclusion criteria." (What "wider inclusion criteria"? Some kind of non-policy arguments relating to undefined personal opinions?)

"Since we do not have basic details like date of birth than it seems reasonable to give less weight to arguments for inherant notability than those arguing delete based on wider policy."

The article was deleted because we didn't know the subject's date of birth. Crazy. Bobo . 08:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. This whole conversation has become a directionless mess. Summarizing my main questions so that I don't lose the points if people are willing to make them.

If I were to add articles on the 29 Kurunegala YCC redlinks with a single first-class appearance, am I to assume they will all be deleted by people who, against years of collaboration by WP:CRIC, have suddenly decided that a single FC appearance isn't good enough?
What is the solution to this problem if we are deciding that random cricketers with one first-class appearance will from now on be tagged willy-nilly?
Where does WP:CRIC need to go as a project if we are forbidden from adding specific articles about specific cricketers, chosen at random, such that our main purpose of building an encyclopedia is invalidated? Bobo . 10:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get back to the main point of this discussion without being distracted by the voluminous reams of red herrings above. The issue here is the behaviour of User:Bobo192 and, to a lesser extent, User:BlackJack and User:Lugnuts who have subjected me to a prolonged barrage of personal abuse for no other reason than that I disagree with WP:CRIC's standards for notability and inclusion. So far these three between them have called me a liar, an idiot, a hypocrite, a coward, disruptive, incompetent, and childish. I have been falsely accused of personal attacks, falsely accused of not being here to edit the encyclopedia, and threatened with blocks and bans. And this is after I after I attempted to withdraw from the argument, which WP:CRIC was apparently unwilling to permit. Let's not get drawn off track by the distraction of Bobo's (currently) irrelevant remarks about individual long-closed AfDs. The real questions that need to be considered are:

Does the community accept Bobo, Lugnuts, and BlackJack as the sole arbiters of inclusion for cricket-related articles?
Does the community accept a protracted campaign of personal abuse and harassment against me for disagreeing with those inclusion standards?

I don't accept either. Reyk _YO! 10:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You claim that there is just one topic at hand, and then you switch it to a completely different topic. Oops.

Question 1: I, Jack, and Lugnuts all voted "keep" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer). But we are not the only contributors to the AfD conversation. So no, we are not the "sole arbiters", but the fact that we agree with each other is up to each one of us and to our own personal opinions based on long-established guidelines.

Question 2: In this AfD, you are in the minority. Your being in the minority and disagreeing with us is not the catalyst for a campaign of supposed "personal abuse and harassment". You are not against WP:CRIN for any sort of policy guidelines, just because of the fact that you "don't like" Microsoft Excel files converted to articles. Bobo . 10:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now Reyk is throwing around his own red herring. There are no "sole arbiter", we use the long-established notability consensus. So you should make yourself familar with it to avoid further embarrassment to yourself and stop wasting everyone's time. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that articles like S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) get deleted in spite of clearly passing guidelines is proof enough that it's not simply WP:CRIC members who are aware of long-established notability guidelines who contribute to cricket AfD discussions. I still maintain that I believe S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer)'s AfD discussion provided no consensus, especially as two of the delete !votes were provided by users who, a, would not usually be permitted to respond to AfDs, and b, belong to an untraceable account. Bobo . 11:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Bobo wishes to appeal the result of an AfD, the correct venue is WP:DRV. This discussion is about the repeated assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks on me by Bobo and others. I repeat: is it legitimate to subject me to a long-term barrage of abuse just because I disagree with WP:CRIC's interpretation of notability requirements? Let's have some input from someone other than Bobo. Reyk _YO! 14:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock for Now music articles part 2

Rangeblocked by Ponyo; nothing else to do here. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 20:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Right on schedule, the two-week rangeblock placed after this ANI report has lifted and the vandal has resumed the same disruption. Can we get a rangeblock of longer duration on 2A02:C7D:9E23:3000::/64? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Involved IPs

14 Sep 2A02:C7D:9E23:3000:90C7:D476:F87A:32E2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
13 Sep 2A02:C7D:9E23:3000:A138:60CD:FEA6:110E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
12 Sep 90.200.29.101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

2A02:C7D:9E23:3000::/64 reblocked for 1 month (which is about the duration they've been active on this range).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Superb. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure violation at WP:AFD/Iceland–Turkey_relations

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iceland–Turkey_relations should be closed on the basis that the nominee belives an previous decision Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambassador of Iceland to Turkey (2nd nomination) was wrongly kept. As per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_review, the correct procedure is to bring the issue up at deletion review. LibStar should not be allowed to create an new deletion discussion as he has done and LibStar should not be allowed to violate procedure like this.--Snaevar (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty much untrue on all accounts. ansh 666 01:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin put the "AfDs for this article:" box on the new AfD? Power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can do that, so I added it here. I hope I did it right. -- Begoon 03:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy Bear (Russia's hack of the DNC)

Discretionary sanction imposed. Miniapolis 22:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since that page obviously falls under American Politics 2, can some uninvolved admin tag the talk page with the usual disclaimer? I'm tired of poorly-sourced conspiracy theories being broadcast there for a general audience. Geogene (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Placed a 1RR restriction, since most recent edits are from registered accounts. Miniapolis 22:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

User SupervladiTM making unfounded edits on "Steaua" disambiguation page

User:SupervladiTM seems to be involved in the latest rampage against "Steaua" / "FCSB" wikipedia pages (english version). He keeps altering the "Steaua" disambiguation page, providing personal input that has nothing to do with reality. He obviously has an agenda trying to imply that FCSB (former Steaua) has been stripped of its records and history. This statement is unsubstantiated. Lately he is reverting to providing references that can not be taken into account, i.e. announcements made by one of the parties involved. Please see the history at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steaua&action=history and also the talk page where I have made efforts to signal the problem and provided references that support my point of view.

I proposed restricting the respective page and imposing a consensus based mechanism before making any subsequent edits. No measure has been taken yet...

Please, let's put an end to this madness!

Taras bulba 47 (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another thread on this??? This is why footy is on my list of topics we should just drop all coverage of as not worth the trouble. Really. Nobody cares about the Romanian football licensing procedures controversy. E Eng 12:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do! The fact that you don't care about Romanian football does not justify allowing people to vandalize pages and write whatever they wish. Taras bulba 47 (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do what? Create a needless additional thread? E Eng 22:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is me, User:SupervladiTM. All statements claimed to be unsubstantiated are provided with clear references and active links. Moreover, all these so-called statements are simply what has been decided by Law in Romania. The FCSB club referred to by Taras bulba 47 is no longer referred to as FC Steaua, as they have officially changed their name. If there is any agenda for this topic, it is definitely not mine - and I am referring to continuous vandalism by users which seem to be upset by the existence of a legitimate Wikipedia page, as well as by its legitimate content, sustained by the several references on this respective page. I have never vandalised any page - and moreover, even reverted some vandalism which had been going on on the FC Steaua București (or FCSB) page. Thank you. User:SupervladiTM 14:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...

Apparently this is still a thing. They seem to have been on the same IP for at least a good seven hours. Blockity block block. Please and thank you. TJW ^talk 15:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with, but see the "involved" thread below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing by User:Gaditano23, warranting blocking (or to the very least admonishment)

Good afternoon, I'd like to show some light on what I deem very tendentious editing on behalf of User:Gaditano23 in this discussion page about the 2017 Catalonia attacks and in the article itself. He (his user name is masculine) has erased a perfectly objective and referenced paragraph. He had posed no objection to it two weeks earlier, but I know he did focus his attention on it, because he had to be corrected (by me) on a major mistake he made then (visible in the discussion, see his paragraph signed 08:33, 5 September 2017).

What I want to impress upon anyone reading this, is that this user is using potentially confrontational language and heavy political editorializing: he labels other users' sentences "silly", calls a Guardian article "idiotic" and like I said, erases a whole paragraph for what I deem to be subjective political reasons. In contrast, my discussion with User:Pincrete is perfectly civilized as can be seen in the talk page. Please read the version dated before 15 September, 16:20 because I don't know what will happen to the talk page

Tensions around the Catalan referendum are VERY high, this was already predicted, by me among others in said discussion days ago, but we all need to make an effort to be objective. And I don't believe in my heart of hearts that Mr. Gaditano23 is here to build an encyclopedia. But I'd like to be proven wrong. I already have a couple referenced paragraphs prepared about this ([72]) and more recent news uncovered by these investigative journalists, but first, with all due respect, the Gaditano23 question needs to be dealt with. What I'm not going to do is start an edit war with someone who is simply distraught at recent news. I'm here to build Wikipedia. Thank you. CodeInconnu (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CodeInconnu We have not even engaged in a discussion, let alone an edit war!! This is not how you use ANIs. Also you should warn me on my talk page! Another editor had to warn me about this. Not cool.Gaditano23 (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did warn you on your talk page seconds after writing the above User_talk:Gaditano23#For_your_information... Not the best way to start this discussion Gaditano! CodeInconnu (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaditano has not done anything even REMOTELY sanctionable and this should be closed ASAP. Some non-Spanish/Catalan eyes (apart fom mine) would help as I think the 'Reactions' section of the article is in danger of going off-topic into matters of very marginal interest to non-local readers. I'm sure there are sources that praise the Catalan authorities and others that castigate them, I am not persuaded that there is any clear pattern yet as to which is going to prevail and whether it is going to influence the referendum AT ALL and how (if at all) that should be included in the 'attack article. Pincrete (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete, I mentioned you because you also appeared in that discussion but none of the relevant bits of THIS discussion involves you. Please let the administrators take care of this and refrain from chiming in and trying to divert their attention from the germane matters. Gaditano has used insulting language to refer to users' sentences and newspaper articles and it is clear to me and anyone reading his interventions that he was editorializing and using the talk page like a forum. Be thankful that I'm civil and I don't try to add that paragraph again to the main page until this is resolved, and please stay out of this. CodeInconnu (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see a content dispute, no conduct issues. @CodeInconnu:, except for very special cases one cannot dictate who may contribute to discussions here. Tiderolls 18:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tide rolls:, calling paragraphs "silly" or references "idiotic" is as much of a conduct issue as it is content. Otherwise shall I start engaging in the same behaviour, see how that sits with Gaditano? CodeInconnu (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment is incorrect. Calling editors silly or idiotic is a conduct issue. One would hope for an explanation for how the edits are silly or idiotic; that would certainly help the discussion. Tiderolls 18:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So are you telling me that I can start labeling editors' contributions and references silly or idiotic compulsively like there's no tomorrow, and not be admonished by anyone? Is that your intelligent contribution to this debate?

Concerning your last sentence, totally agreed. Said explanation hasn't come yet (other than a haphazard reference to a potential "battefield", but Gaditano is more than welcome to offer his intelligent reasons before I add that paragraph again. So far no intelligent reasons have been offered. He may be nervous with the international scrutiny on Spain and all, but we're her to be impartial... CodeInconnu (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no debate; there has been no conduct displayed that requires admin attention. Tiderolls 18:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CodeInconnu, I am involved both because you named me and because I am actively 'watching' the page. I believe you are abusing the ANI process in that you have not really engaged on talk but come here hoping to get admin support, it won't happen. I largely agree with Gaditano and think the whole 'Reactions' section is going increasingly off-topic, so you are in the minority. You are welcome to do an RfC and I have tried above to invite other editors' eyes. You are new here, and have made very few edits outside this topic area, I believe. Pincrete (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete, I don't think you've thought it carefully before writing this.

I didn't want to focus on you but now that you're begging for my attention, let me remind you that your entire discussion in that talk page was full of assumptions, weasel wording, opinions passed as facts and an intolerant adamancy that led me to believe that you either have a dog in this fight, or are not here to build an encyclopedia (neither is Gaditano). You're making assumptions here as well, e.g. presuming I'm here to curry favor (Tide Rolls says it's OK to label actions but not people, so I guess it's OK to label your assumption idiotic). Most importantly, you keep droning on about not mentioning the referendum but the one edit you left untouched was precisely the one referring to the referendum. Hence your edits have been not only disruptive, but also contradictory. And silly, idiotic, etc.

The fact I haven't made many edits outside of this topic could only be any of your business if I, or anyone else, owed you an explanation. Hang on, I don't. So there.

And finally, being new to a place is sometimes healthier than being old to/for it and losing perspective. When a person, generally speaking, mistakes a public domain for their own private fiefdom, it usually is a reflection of deeper issues that should be addressed face to face with people trained to deal with them. I'm not looking at anyone in particular. CodeInconnu (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So now three editors today have agreed that this material is off-topic and removed it. All of them are wrong according to you! Possibly more should be removed about the Sp/Cat tensions. Pincrete (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's been put on hold until the current political situation takes some shape. Just find some help and stop using wiki as an ad-hoc therapy please. There's better entertainment you can find at the care home. CodeInconnu (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INVOLVED block for legal threats

185.76.9.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Talk:Spartan Race (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I've blocked this IP for making an explicit legal threat, as well as repeated personal attacks, and clearly being the same editor as Jkxyz who is already blocked for making similar legal threats on the same page. I've edited the page and participated in the dispute somewhat tangentially in the past, and was specifically named in the IP's legal threat, so per WP:INVOLVED I'm posting here for review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've now also blocked 185.212.170.103 and semiprotected the talk page for a few hours. The article already has long-term semiprotection (also by me, IIRC). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty long term campaign, lasting more than a year if I'm not mistaken, and involving lord only knows how many blocks. If anybody's got a better solution I'm open to suggestions. TJW ^talk 15:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support the block per WP:NLT and as a sock puppet of Jkxyz --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:32.218.38.102

See tirade below. Happy editing to all. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This user has been continuously been disrupting Wikipedia by edit warring at User talk:32.218.38.102 and has harassed one user! I am surprised this IP hasn't been as there is continuous disruption being caused. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page at any time. The exception are unblock requests that are declined for currently effective blocks on the user. I would suggest not placing the warnings on the user's page again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Pkbwcgs You are very much in the wrong as to who is edit warring contrary to policy at that IP talk page. You've misunderstood and misapplied WP:BLANKING completely. The IP is completely free to remove the templates you've added to their talk page and it's you who are not exempt from 3RR in this situation.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely stopped reverting this IP's edits and I currently not even touching the IP's talk page. In fact, I won't even involve in this situation. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, I wish you'd decided to do that sooner. Also, it's good because if you touch that talk page again I will block you. Also noting that, once again, the underlying issue that started this whole thing was a good edit by the IP, which was reverted twice for no reason by another editor, and when the IP took offense, multiple editors decided to gang up on the IP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to pile on, but you've been blocked indefinitely twice in the space of less than a year. Seeing this does not give me the feeling you've learned from your last block, which was just removed earlier this month. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have promised myself that if I touch this IP's user talk page or his/her edits ever again, I will be re-blocked. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm very concerned about your edits in general. For instance this edit just feels like vandalism. You reverted an IP's perfectly valid edit for seemingly no reason and with no edit summary. It seems from your recent edit history this isn't an uncommon pattern, and you've been wrong several times but appear to automatically assume an edit by an IP address is vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 21:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll close this in a second. Pkbwcgs, you got a half dozen heavy hitters giving you solid advice and I'm afraid you're still not listening very well. Floq wasn't telling you not to revert that IP editor again; they were telling you to not simply revert some IP edit without checking very carefully whether the edit is good or not, and if you revert you damn well better explain what you are doing and why; and every editor here, IP or not, gets to decide within certain limits, what to do on their talk page and you are not the one to decide what the limits are and whether or not they've been crossed. Am I making myself, and those other cats, clear? You're on a tight leash: senseless reverting, edit warring on someone's talk page, BITEy behavior, etc., any of these, or others yet unlisted! can lead to another block. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Range block?

Recently, 2602:306:33C5:1860:409:8219:47AC:C06D (talk · contribs), 2602:306:33C5:1860:F9D3:C1E1:ECA8:83F (talk · contribs), 2602:306:33C5:1860:D877:518F:F573:110D (talk · contribs), 2602:306:33C5:1860:4CEC:BD47:3AFB:629A (talk · contribs), and similar IPs beginning with 2602:306:33C5:1860 have been "spamming" gratutious mentions of a children's anthology called Sing a Song of Popcorn in a bunch of articles (as well as overlinking). It's pretty clear that all are the same person, and in some cases they have vioated 3RR. I know nothing about IP6s and little about range blocks, and I can't even figure out how to give a warning that would be seen. Would it be possible to block the person without undue collateral damage? Deor (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI recent edits by this range can be seen at Special:Contributions/2602:306:33C5:1860::/64. They seem mostly unhelpful, and they have been rangeblocked in the past [[73]]. A /64 rangeblock would seem appropriate, as anything else will likely be useless. See mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6 for more information on this. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's been using 2602:306:33C5:1860::/64 all year.

Hoax pointed out by Binksternet after a final warning given by Apokryltaros on a previous day. There are other talk pages with warnings.

Binksternet warned him on a different range, 2602:306:33C5:2C90::/64 last year many times. Another example. Also, this looks interesting.

Binksternet, VCV comes to mind but you may recognize this as someone else?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was checking a couple of things before blocking but Malcolmxl5 already indeffed for a week and that sounds like a good start.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed for a week?? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one week is what I imagine Berean Hunter meant to say. It's a step up from the 31 hour block in July but if the disruptive editing resumes, longer blocks may be warranted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with (i.e., reverting all of its edits and warned) this vandal hoaxer before. I strongly agree with the recommendation of a range-block to stymie its efforts. At the very least, if an IP's edit history contains any mention of "yakety yak," REVERT EVERYTHING, REVERT EVERYTHING.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be useful to design an edit filter to look for "yakety yak"? Tornado chaser (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk back. E Eng 01:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP6 range under discussion certainly looks like a lot of it is the Voice Cast Vandal's handiwork. A week-long block is too short, in my opinion. In any case, the incorrigible person will find another inlet to continue the disruption here. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein - accusation of bludgeoning. Article Plimpton 322

I have been accused of bludgeoning by David Eppstein on this page and as per advice raise a notice here. There is a dispute on this page. Recently an article about the subject of the page appeared in a prestigious academic journal to considerable publicity in 'quality' newspapers. Traffic to the page increased greatly. Some long term editors wish to exclude all mention of this article. This appears to be quite against the broad guidelines of wikipedia which says that all mainstream points of view must be represented. Various other editors have stated that the article should be mentioned. I requested comment some days ago but none has been forthcoming. 9and50swans (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify for anyone following along: Plimpton 322 is the article being discussed, not a username. (I have no other interest in this discussion beyond pointing that out).Alephb (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity I changed the title of this section 9and50swans (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the article's talk page, and this thread simply constitutes yet more bludgeoning by the OP, who possibly deserves a b... a boo... a boom... I won't say it. E Eng 12:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A boom lowered on him? --(signed) Inquiring Editor
Maybe a booby prize? --Prize Patrol
Give him the boot? --Just for Kicks
Boom Bang-a-Bang? --Lulu

Personal attacks by Areaseven

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

I don't know whether this noticeboard is pertinent to this matter. I saw this edit summary a few days ago, and I was shocked, becuase it seemed to be sarcastic. So I asked user Areaseven about it in user talk page. But user Areaseven was reverting back the before version to using the Rollbacker tool. I really want to know why user Areaseven said that, and I hope user Areaseven was suitably apologetic for comments in edit summary. So I asked user Areaseven again. In spite of Despite subsequent my requests, user Areaseven was reverting back the before version #1, #2 again to using the Rollbacker tool. In this situation, what can I do? Thanks. --Garam (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you're still making such a big deal out of this after so many days, to the point where you should apologize for harassing me over it. So let it go. - Areaseven (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Areaseven: If you apologized to me at first, I don't say to you for this matter again and again. But you did not apologize to me, until now. This is the key point. --Garam (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what - I'll apologize on the condition that you stop taking issues like this too personally. Deal? - Areaseven (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Areaseven: You think your attitude is really suited for this situation now? The matter (and your responses) is absolutely your fault. Don't you think so? I'm really uncomfortable now. :( --Garam (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) This edit summary is a personal attack, or at least quite uncivil, telling others to shut up on wikipedia is not a good idea, neither is deleting comments on your talk page without answering them, although removal of comment from you own talk page IS allowed, Areaseven's pattern of ignoring massages is not good, but Garam's insistence on an apology is not really necessary.

I doubt there is much for an admin to do, as there don't seem to be any ongoing personal attacks, I suggest not arguing about a days old edit summary, that said, I am not in any way implying that "shut up" is acceptable in an edit summary. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that telling Garam to shut up was uncalled for, and I offered to apologize to him, but given his last reply, it appears that an apology is simply not enough. Like I said earlier, he's taken this issue way too personally. - Areaseven (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are genuinely sorry you said something, then an apology for it should be unconditional - but if you are using an apology as a conditional bargaining tool, then it is not genuine and is worthless. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Although removing these links may have been the correct move, it should have been removed in the regular way and certainly not with a personal attack in the edit summary. Alex Shih ^Talk 13:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So... what do you want to come out of this situation? I've already admitted to my fault, yet people still want blood or something. And for the record, my "attack" was due to Garam's overzealous deletion of information. Sure, Namu Wiki is not a reputable reference (which, BTW, was not among my edits on the Tobot article), but removing all character information was completely unnecessary. So yes, I apologize for telling him to "shut up." Anything else we need to do to close this case? - Areaseven (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You attempt to justify a PA at the same time you apologize? you should probably familiarize yourself with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrated Wikicontrols makes legal threat out of ignorance

Wikicontrols seems to have made a legal threat. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed. Their other conduct (edit-warring, personal attacks) was bad, too. GAB^gab 15:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered a comment correcting a couple of fundamental misunderstandings. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[mj-1] Bauer, Shane (27 April 2017). "A Punch in the Face Was Just the Start of the Alt-Right's Attack on a Berkeley Protester". Retrieved 20 August 2017.

[2] Sheffield, Matthew. "Trolling for a race war: Neo-Nazis are trying to bait leftist "antifa" activists into violence — and radicalize white people". Salon. Retrieved May 27, 2017.

[Branson-Potts-3] Branson-Potts, Hailey (April 17, 2017). "Cal State Stanislaus to investigate white supremacist student who punched woman in Berkeley melee". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved April 17, 2017. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

[cbs-4] "Woman seen getting punched in viral video speaks out". CBS NEWS. 18 April 2017. Retrieved 30 AUgust 2017. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[snopes-5] "Was a Protester Throwing Explosives Into a Berkeley Crowd Before She Was Punched?". snopes. Retrieved 30 August 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 418: / Line 418: @@
 == Request for reviewing the block of a disruptive user ==
+{{atop|Per consensus here, I'm removing the NPP and autopatrolled flags from Anoptimistix.  Otherwise, I don't think there's a lot to do here.  [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 16:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)}}
 I request all admins to take a look at the [[User:Umair Aj]]. The User is been currently blocked for couple of weeks for sheer disruptive editing. The blocking administrator was himself
 Shocked to see the disruptive and malicious editing of the user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Umair_Aj&diff=798238247]. From the past record of the user it is also proved that the user is a proven master sock,
@@ Line 523: / Line 523: @@
 *Yes please do I am visiting here daily because running away from this place would portray me as courageless. I am happy contributing to this project as long as my enthusiasm remains, with or without any right. Had only requested Autoreviewer right as [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/index.php?user=Anoptimistix&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects most of my creations] would remain unreviewed for months, the right granting admin was very kind, but I can contribute without this right too ! And I had request NPP to help New comers by supporting their newly created pages by citing in-depth coverages and marking it as reviewed  which I honestly did  I will continue patrolling newpages but will not be able to mark it as reviewied it which is fine. I also thank all those who "opposed block" you guys were very kind. I also request apology from {{u|SpacemanSpiff}} as some users felt I was aggressive towards them, which I certainly wasn't and have always respected them and their immense contributions to this project which includes mammoth collection of articles and other tireless contributions to the project. Best wishes. [[User:Anoptimistix|Anoptimistix]] ([[User talk:Anoptimistix|talk]]) 14:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
+{{abot}}
 == Editing behaviour at David S. Chang ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards