{{Archive-top|status=Site ban enacted|result=There is sufficient consensus to implement a site ban.
[[User:Cathry]] is hereby indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may file an appeal in 6 months.—[[User:Cyberpower678|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">CYBERPOWER</span>''']] <span style="font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:Cyberpower678|<span style="color:red">Message</span>]])</span> 00:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)}}
After what I think has been sufficient discussion, I formally propose a [[WP:CBAN|community site ban]] for [[User:Cathry]]. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
After what I think has been sufficient discussion, I formally propose a [[WP:CBAN|community site ban]] for [[User:Cathry]]. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
I would support the request. I found recently impossible to discuss these issues with Fram, since I did not get an impression they listen to what I say, but if there is a user who could communicate with them it would be very useful to provide input and move the discussion forward.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I listen. I don't blindly accept. Don't confuse the two. Anyway, I started an RfC, so obviously more input is welcome. It would be rather stupid to start an RfC if I didn't want more input. Another discussion where Mike Peel and Ymblanter (and a few others) happen to disagree with me was posted by me to WP:AN, WP:VPPR, WP:CENT and WP:BON. Many editors in that discussion have no problem communicating with me and vice versa, and that discussion is nicely moving forward, though perhaps not in the direction Ymblanter prefers. The RfC here is whether it is best to continue with the newish Wikidata-driven version of the template for Unesco World Heritage sites, or revert to the earlier local version (which I have now revived and improved in a new template to help the discussion forward). I.e. whether using Wikidata outweighs the problems noted on the template talk page (in the RfC, and in the discussions before). A comparison between the old and new template can be made at e.g. the old and new version of Park Güell. The new template is still being developed (and the /doc is not up to date yet), but as far as I know everything the Wikidata version did, plus some new things, are easily possible already. Fram (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to keep this as a neutral request. I won't post my point of view here, it's on the template talk page. *Please* can someone other than me and Fram provide input there? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Premature closure
The discussion has been prematurely closed by @Francis Schonken: as WP:SNOW. The discussion was still ongoing, and was only recently started, and it is not clear that there is SNOW consensus here. Francis is also not an uninvolved/neutral editor in this case (see his recent contributions to Wikidata discussions). Please can someone review this closure, and ideally reverse it? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: the RfC has been reopened. For clarity: I have no problem with that. I tried to close before an obvious elephant would enter the room. Fram was careful to keep that elephant out of the room two days before I implemented my SNOW close. After reopening the RfC, the elephant immediately entered the room (yeah, I had seen that coming). The so-called elephant is a behavioural issue, which imho should better be treated outside a content-related RfC. The behavioural issue is Mike Peel mass-deleting Wikipedia-defined parameter content from Wikipedia's mainspace with the obvious aim of creating a fait accompli, thus having made a successful outcome of the RfC considerably more complicated to implement (hundreds of pages would need a revert to make the former version of the template display useful content). There was no consensus whatsoever for these content deletion proceedings. Now that this behavioural "elephant" is part of the RfC, I think the RfC should be suspended or closed (its outcome is obvious), so that the behavioural component can be given a proper treatment (for instance here: I have no prejudice on how the community wants that to turn out). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The aim here was not to have a fait accompli. I was not deleting content, I was changing it so that the Wikidata values were being used instead, and cleaning up the information at the same time. But we should talk about this on the talk page of the template, not here, and I am working on a draft RfC to see what the consensus is here for the future. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update – The RfC currently still shows a supermajority to accept the OP proposal (2 clear opponents, 6 clear supporters). But something changed: the Wikidata version should be avoided while clogging the watchlist feature in WikiMedia projects other than Wikidata. That clogging led to disabling the possibility to make Wikidata changes show up in en.Wikipedia watchlists (see Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 RfC draft#Systemic issue that has serious implications for increased use of Wikidata), and that former possibility was exactly key to the opponents' reasoning. To sum up: one of the key assumptions of the outnumbered opponents has become moot, and until a complex technical issue is resolved WikiMedia project outside Wikidata should make less calls to Wikidata from infoboxes (while extensive calls from infoboxes seem to have been the root cause of the technical problems). I propose, unless someone objects, to re-close the RfC on "accept" of the OP proposal, with the provision that a Wikidata version of the template may only again become the single standard for this infobox after technical issues are resolved, and a future RfC shows a broad acceptance of that idea. Without prejudice against experimenting with the separate Wikidata version of the template on a handful-ish of mainspace implementations until such future RfC decides on its fate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cathry and casting aspersions
I recently blocked User:Cathry for one week for edit-warring and spreading fringe theories without reliable sources. She had two unblock requests declined. She is obviously unhappy, and casts aspersions that I was off-wiki approached by someone from the Russian Wikipedia (where, as far as I can see, she is indefblocked) and asked to block her account (see e.g. [1]). In fact, I was not approached by anybody, I blocked her on the basis of my own judgement, and for ten years which I am around I always consistently defended transparency in the decision making. Therefore I consider this a personal attack, though I understand that some users may view it differently (and even call it childish, as it recently happened on a different occasion). Would an administrator be willing to have a look please? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good block in my opinion, definite WP:FRINGE territory here. Also, the IP commenting on the page has my curiosity up, might this be some logged out editing? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about the edit warring block but not so much that I would suggest overturning it. She certainly earned the extended block with her talk page activity. I've just closed two SPIs that were opened related to this, and I think it's pretty clear that the user spewing Russian all over their talk page is not the same well-Englished user as the Australian IP(s). However, IP's already received an NPA block and is dancing very close to earning a longer one. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like original block was fine. But if the extension was for block evasion as the 120.17.83.90 IP why is the extension still in place when the SPI showed they are not the same person? PackMecEng (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was imposed by @WJBscribe: per WP:DUCK. Indeed, shit happens, and it looks now, when they both had a chance for a long rant, that the IP is different from the user. Still, I maintain that I had no communication with anybody on the Russian Wikipedia (or, in fact, with anybody at all) contrary to what the user says.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WJBscribe:, I would support an undoing of the block extension. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem that the IP has a much better command of English than Cathry has. I've no doubt that the IP is a sockpuppet of some editor, but I rather doubt that it's Cathry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Happy to defer to you on this one - no objection from me to undoing the extension if review and consideration of fuller evidence suggests my instincts were mistaken. WJBscribe(talk) 22:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually since we are discussing this block, in my view this user is entirely disruptive and time-sucking when they edit about health, and I would like to propose that they be TBANed from health content.
I was unaware of their activity at ru-WP until they brought it up just now. Looking there, here is their block log. It is no wonder they are now indeffed there. This person does not play well with others.
Looking at their block log here in en-WP, they were blocked in february for edit warring. I brought that case here for edit warring bad content into the Herbalism article against four other editors
Looking at User_talk:Cathry/Archive_1, you see warning after warning for bad editing on content about health. The articles where they were disruptive include Herbalism, Phytochemical, Squalene (the main phyto-chemical in shark liver oil and also present in olive oil), Banana, Green tea.
What led to their current block is their editing at Rheumatoid arthritis in support of the rather rabid IP who says they are from Australia who piped up on Cathry's talk page. What is going on with the IP, is that they are committed to the The Truth that Epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG, the phyto-chemical people focus on when they talk about health benefits of green tea) is a Wonder Drug Suppressed By The Pharmaceutical Industry. (If you have a look at the talk page of Talk:Epigallocatechin gallate you will see why I was about to bring an AE case against the IP for battering the hell out of that talk page) What Cathry did, was jump in to "help" the IP:
diff and edit-warring restored here adding this half-garble and scare quotes.
jumping to the arthritis article and adding this content promoting EGCG/green tea
further back here was their edit to Squalene, adding a bunch of hype about this phytochemical with an edit note it is satisfies MEDRS and NPOV while they are actually adding primary sources along with some good ones.
This is what they do when they edit about health - I just groan when I see their name pop up on my watch list, as it is inevitably more hyping of the appeal to nature for health claims with marketing content like what comes from dietary supplement marketers, citing primary sources and pushing reviews farther than they go. This person is not here to build an encyclopedia, with respect to health. And their combative unblock requests and agreement with the IP on the pharma shill conspiracy theory just shows that more. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think a topic ban is sufficient? After looking over their talk page, I'd be inclined to support an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, the IP is not Cathry. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies: Yes, I know, I said as much up thread, so my inclination to support an indef block has nothing to do with their supposed socking. I simply don't think that the editor has anything positive to offer Wikipedia, and is a net negative. I see no reason to allow them to continue to edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, Drmies, but stuff from Cathry like this and this (you will have to use your friend google translate) and this and this in response to Ymblanter are just personalizing and icky. And here they said "thank you" in response to our IP's screeds (an exact continuation of what we've been putting up with at the EGCG article). And Cathry thanked the IP and spun more conspiracy theorizing here. And here Cathry writes: In fact, I'm already tired of fighting your bureaucracy. ...Anyway, paid participants can jump - I have no desire to edit here anymore. No one interferes in their whitewashing and destroying of content. which is just repeating the pharma shill gambit in the face of their poor quality phytochemical-hyping edits getting rejected consistently.
Cathry did dig themselves a hole at their talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just came upon this. Although I agree that the IP is clearly a different user, I'm also inclined to agree with the comments about Cathry being a net negative here. I've been having some pretty unpleasant interactions with Cathry at GMO pages – where there are DS in place from the ArbCom GMO case. When they recently showed up at Talk:Genetically modified organism, I tried very hard to be friendly to them: [2], [3]. But shortly later, at Talk:Glyphosate, they became very IDHT and battlegroundy: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Please note in particular the personalization of the discussion and the resistance to engaging with what I actually said, leading in the last diff to the mocking repetition of what I had said earlier. Take that with their own user talkpage comments noted above, and I'm seeing a lot of NOTHERE. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree some admins commenting that an indef is likely for NOTHERE, it's just a question of when. Some of the edits drift into GMOs, others are more on health topics. A health topic ban could be an immediate next step, but this looks like a SageRad-like case where it might save the community and Cathry grief by indeffing sooner than later due to advocacy and battleground mentality. It does look like the IP block was a mix-up though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A distinction that I would make is that SageRad was an intelligent and self-aware editor who just did not accept how Wikipedia does things, whereas Cathry (even when one allows for language issues) appears to be much less competent. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A large part of Cathry's most-edited pages are Ukraine-related articles. Is there any evidence that they have been disruptive in this area? If not, with only 2 blocks in their history, a subject-area restriction seems more appropriate than an indef block.Dialectric (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be OK with a restriction like that, but it would have to be awfully broad. I'm not sure than an Ukraine is allowed but everything else is off-limits ban would be workable. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This demonstrates she can not edit Ukrainian topics either.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's entirely correct. I think we should seriously consider a site-ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So she mostly writes about Ukraine, while the two users who came here to call for her block on English Wikipedia, happen to both be Russian Wikipedia admins? Seems highly coincidental. I suspect it may be challenging to maintain a NPOV, given how contentious Ukrainian/Russian politics are? There's a few ongoing issues here. Like false claims in the previous block request by one of the admins, stating he created a talk section against her, when it was created by a 3rd party to contest the admin's own edits (who ignored Talk). Ongoing attributions of the IP user's edits, already proven not to be Cathry. I could go on long, but even many of the links above don't hold up under scrutiny. 120.17.143.20 (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any Russian Wikipedia admins in this thread. Conspiracy theories are exciting, right?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite sure what you want to communicate by showing my Meta-hosted generic page which shows up in all the projects where I do not maintain a user page. For a starter, this is my contribution on the Russian Wikipedia: [12]. It is trivial to check that I am not admin there.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you write strategy documents for Russian Wikivoyage, deeply involved in Russian language and culture outreach promotion and intervene in discussions against Ukrainians opposing a proposal for WMF to effectively market visiting Russia, by use of banner for your Russian project displayed to users in Ukraine. A responsible admin would recognise such conflicts of interest and recuse himself from such user ban decisions, much less initiate them and pretend it's about Health topic matters. Given the amount of time you invested on Russian work, it looks more like paid editing too. FSB perhaps, or just cosying? 120.17.117.112 (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP is ready for a block. Anybody?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this is an IP hopper. May be a range block? I do not think allegations of paid editing without any proof should go unblockable.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IP: if you are going to make accusations against editors (such as accusing Ymblanter of "interven(ing) in discussions against Ukrainians opposing a proposal for WMF to effectively market visiting Russia because of their Russian-related background" - I'm presumaing that's what you meant by "Russian Wikipedia admins") you are going to have to prove them - that's the way Wikipedia works. Ymblanter: I'd suggest that any block would need to be made by an uninvolved admin. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite: I am quite familiar with WP:INVOLVED, and I do not quite see how it applies to me in this situation. I am not going to block the IP and ask other administrators to do it. Concerning Cathry, if the IP, rather than throwing random allegations around (that I am paid by FSB is a particularly nice one) would straight check the facts, they would immediately find that I had zero overlap with Cathry in the Russian Wikipedia. She registered an account there one year after I stopped editing. I do not see how I am involved in any way concerning her block.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on an unreliable connection and lost the page. It's 2am here and Googling "Ymblanter Ukraine political Russia" yields FAR too many results on him. COI wasn't declared here and neither was his role as Russian Wikivoyager strategist when he called for action against Ukrainian editors warning that such promotion would unduly politicise WMF in the Ukraine. 120.17.117.112 (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is fucking bullshit.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One example from many: [13]. Also, language unfit to be an admin. Request he be banned for NPA. 120.17.117.112 (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If can't even show decorum and WP:CIVILITY on an ANI page, then User:Ymblanter is seriously unfit to be an Administrator. Immediate ban seems appropriate. 120.17.117.112 (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't even know the entire history of Cathryn & Ymblanter. But I know there's politics involved. I did however see what happened at EGCG & RA pages (between Zefr, Jytdog & Ymblanter) and certainly wasn't impressed. Still waiting for an answer at Talk:Rheumatoid Arthritis on how 3 secondary reviews are somehow primary source. 120.17.117.112 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you to show proof of your allegations, instead you double down with more allegations and no evidence bar a few diffs which show nothing of the sort. Meanwhile, on the RA page, your main point appears to be accusing two long-term editors of being sockpuppets because they agree with each other, and disagree with you. Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that block. The actions of the IP editor have become a distraction from the primary issue here, and I think that we should now get back to the original question of Cathry's editing. The response posted just below is not giving me any confidence, because it simply continues the conspiracy theorizing about Ymblanter, and the self-unaware defense of the editing patterns that I and other editors have raised above (note, for example, the comments below about glyphosate, after the evidence that I posted above). I'm getting very close to making a formal proposal for a site-ban, but I'll allow just a little more time for editor input first. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now I obviously support the site ban as well. I do not see any way to communicate to conspiracy theorists.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Cathry
I think that I have reason to believe that Ymblanter was off-wiki approached by someone from the Russian Wikipedia and asked to block my account.
Ymblanter claims I did "edit-warring and spreading fringe theories without reliable sources". In fact over the past 2 weeks my "fringe" edits in articles were:
All these mine edits were reverted, after that I did not return any edit. So it is obviously false claim about "edit warring and fringe theories".
Nevertheless, i recieved similar accusation by Grebenkov admin in Russian wikipedia in similar issue. I used same reliable sources there, for examble José L. Domingo review. And I know, that Ymblanter was once administrator there as Yaroslav Blanter. Talk page there. Also I know, that there are skype conferences where admininstrators communicate and decide to block someone (even if it is against the rules). It is worth noting there was claim to arbitration about this issue and Ymblanter (Yaroslav Blanter then) acted as arbitrator, although according to some claims he once took part in that skype conference. One of active skype conference participant was administrator Grebenkov. The arbitration decision was very loyal to the chat participants.
Week ago, I didn't remember my collision with Ymblanter here. But recently i realised, that as early as in 2014 he already hostilely commented on my edits here and dreamed about my block. And in 2015 he confessed he watched my edits in Russian wikipedia. So I think it is not very conspiratorially to suppose he communicate with someone from Russian wikipedia or he has a particularly hostile attitude towards me. Cathry (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for my edits related to health content described as "disruptive" by Jytdog. One notable example is Banana article. Zefr persistently rebuilt claim that " A compilation of potassium content in common foods consumed in the United States shows that raw bananas rank 1,611th" One can follow link to USDA base and find that it is really 1611, but after such "food" as fennel seed, cocoa powder, leaveninig low-sodium agents, spices and so on. Does somebody eat 100 g of fennel seed or leavening low-sodim agents per meal and can get significant amount of potassium from it? I think no, also Wikiloop think no, and now this dubious claim is absent in Banana article. And it is so disruptive according to Jytdog. Cathry (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was not approached by anyone from Russian Wikipedia (or anyone else, for that matter) and asked to block you.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yet above, you claimed you were not a Russian Wikipedia administrator and tried to claim your contributions to ru-wiki were merely as Ymblanter, [Special:MobileDiff/804363635], whereas in fact you had been contributing under your alt account [14], intentionally misleading ANI. I'll hold off calling it sockpuppetry, because the RU acct was deleted (maybe to try covering tracks?). Perhaps your profanity here, calling "fucking bullshit" was in response to your being found out misleading ANI? Note, in a common tactic, I was blocked above before given opportunity to continue providing evidence of the Russian wiki involvement. My unblock request, was then filed as "evading block" with a 400% time extension, for the sole fact I'm stuck on dynamic IP (with millions of other users) to make the unblock request. A fact completely outside my control, yet a great tactic for exploitation by wikilawyers to deny fair hearings, even though my Talk page to seek appeal would not have been blocked, so not evading. Allbeit, signing off. 120.18.92.91 (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to remark that (i) the above is block evasion; (ii) most comments about me in this topic, well, represent BLP violations and, according to WMF policy, need to be revision deleted - I am still a living person, and my real name was already mentioned here.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your own first entry as Ymblanter linked to the real name account and confirmed your identity, so I don't know why you're seeking suppression retroactively, of something you'd made public then, apart from to cover your deception of ANI here. 120.18.129.246 (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Block evasion again. I am not necessarily seeking suppression, this is up to an uninvolved administrator to decide, but merely removing from this page all this bullshit allegations about me written from a bunch of Australian IPs and range-block of the IP would be already a good step forward.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for my edits at Glyphosate talk page described as "battlegroundy" by Tryptofish. Now, there is statement in Glyphosate article "In 2008, USDA-ARS scientist Stephen O. Duke and Stephen B. Powles, an Australian weed expert — described glyphosate as a "virtually ideal" herbicide" This claim about "ideal herbicide" referenced with this article. It is obvious they called it ideal because they think "it is very toxicologically and environmentally safe". So it is obvious it is MEDRS related claim. But it was in 2008, and in 2017 one ot this scientists (Duke) says quite another thing. Tryptofish and Kingofaces43 want outdated 2008 statement to stay in article forever. And they state it is not MEDRS-related but only "opinion". And when it comes to a recent review which calls glyphosate endorine disruptor it is bad only because it is "narrative" review. Any objection to this is declared "battlegroundy" Cathry (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to put a note here to indicate that I have read Cathry's comment to me. I also think that a read of Talk:Glyphosate will make very clear what is in fact going on. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that you are not a neutral or uninvolved participant. It's quite unreasonable to be acting as victim, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. On procedural grounds, there is no way you should be passing motions against Cathry, while you're involved in a disagreement with her yourself. Besides, Glyphosate genotoxity and probable carcinogenicity is hardly a "fringe conspiracy". It is in fact the official position of the World Health Organization. [1]. Her only 'crime' has been holding a position than aligns with experts and holding a different opinion to someone who happens to also be a WP administrator. That's not "battlegroundy". All that's going on here is abuse of power and process. 120.18.96.198 (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And that is block evasion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is sufficient consensus to implement a site ban.
User:Cathry is hereby indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may file an appeal in 6 months.—CYBERPOWER(Message) 00:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support as proposer. I think that the discussion above has amply demonstrated that the user is a net negative and severe time-sink across multiple editing areas, and that they have simply doubled-down in response to the issues raised, instead of responding constructively. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think quite opposite, you together with Kingofaces43, Zefr, Jytdog etc are destroying articles Cathry (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I normally do not support site bans, and initially I was not thinking the situation would so quickly escalate to a site ban, but given she is apparently unable to make a distinction between reliable sources and conspiracy theories, I do not see any other choice.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You simply lie and did not give a single argument about sources I use. Cathry (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not lie and, in fact, I never lie. You just made it up, and, as such, you have no place on this project. Take your battleground mentality and conspiracy theories elsewhere.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would watch you said face to face with Domingo, that he adherent of conspiracy theory Cathry (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The response above sums it up perfectly. The user treats Wikipedia like a WP:BATTLEGROUND. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you dream that I was silent in response to rudeness and false accusations Cathry (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Do NOT support". None of the points in Cathry's response have been addressed at all, or even properly replied to (apart from by someone who's deceived ANI, as evidenced above). Furthermore, the person who raised this ban motion is in fact a participant in the original matter, so the whole thing needs to be throw out on procedural grounds. 120.18.96.198 (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The IP has been blocked for evading a still current block. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
support their behavior here has made it clear that a ban broader than the one I proposed is appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the unsubstantiated accusations and "it's all them" in response to the bannproposal are enough for me. Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Completely fails WP:BMB. No other remedies have been tried. This is the first time they have even been reported to ANI. The most we should be talking about is a topic ban, or a block for from one to six months, or an indef with WP:STANDARDOFFER. The fact that the user is defensive, or getting defensive, or making accusations, or is trying to defend themselves, is immaterial to the overarching principle that we allow editors to rehabilitate themselves over time (or after a block of some length), and to learn the ways of English Wikipedia, and to learn to edit productively. This leap to site-ban has no basis in process and protocol, and seems to be railroading. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. User is clearly WP:NOTHERE even based on comments here, and they've been given enough rope with previous warnings and blocks already. There already appeared to be a consensus for this in the original conversation. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support and support banning the IP as well. Editors who get so into their own beliefs that they think a conspiracy of Russian administrators conferring in secret teleconferences and planning out how to keep you from sharing the important truths that only you know is more plausible than the reality that your sources are garbage don't belong on Wikipedia. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support even while this discussion has been going, they've been posting [15] and reposting [16] unhelpful aspersions/personal attacks about other editors. That's not promising. Geogene (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I want to follow up further on what Geogene posted. At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Casting aspersions, ArbCom made a specific finding that "accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes" are impermissible, and enacted Discretionary Sanctions to that effect. Cathry was properly informed of those decisions: [17], and subsequently warned during a block about personal attacks: [18]. That is plenty of prior notice, before this ANI, so the claims to the contrary are untrue. Cathry returned from the block, and completely apart from any self-defense here at ANI, did this today: [19], [20], [21]. That's plenty sufficient for a WP:AE block, but I would hope that the community could deal with it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Softlavender above. prokaryotes (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose per User:Softlavender. A topic ban and a reasonably short block should be at least tried before going nuclear.Jacona (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Strike my original content, based on misconception of past sanctions. Jacona (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a 2014 ANI post, from the editor complaining about someone predicting he will get blocked, and two more recent short blocks (it seems without ANI involved), not sure why. prokaryotes (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note. There have been a few comments about this being the "first" time this user has faced sanctions. Unfortunately, that is not factually based. Here is a link to the block log: [22], showing a prior history of blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Softlavender. Jusdafax 18:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it's based on something that is not true. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My limited interaction with Cathry at Talk:Genetically modified organism, although not incivil, did not lead me to believe that Cathry has any intent to follow policy (especially neutrality) with the other evidence put forward, or to be a polite, productive member of the community. With previous blocks and warnings given to Cathry—including user warnings on their talk page as early as May 2014—why are we to believe that their actions will change for the better after a more lengthy ban (following two short-term bans this year)? What sort of topic ban would anyone suggest that could possibly suffice? – Rhinopias (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support site ban or indef block + heavy topic ban (perhaps with the TBAN as a requisite condition to unblock, rather than as a concurrent sanction). It's simply not the case that Cathry has never been in trouble before over their disruptive edits stretching back, apparently, years, meaning that Softlavender's oppose !vote (and consequently all three subsequent oppose !votes) are based on incorrect premises. Pushing fringe theories in articles in that general field is a serious problem, and should be dealt with in one form or another. This means that Softlavender, and all subsequent oppose !votes, are not being helpful by recognizing that disruption is taking place, but blank-opposing with a concrete alternative solution. Had they said outright "Indef block with possibility of STANDARDOFFER" that would be one thing, but they didn't -- Softlavender said that that is the most Cathry should face, with another alternative option presumably being a slap on the wrist. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the response above Cathry argues based on reliable sources, with good arguments. Most of the users who vote for a site-ban here are the very active editors engaged in content disputes with Cathry. Her defense here is sincere based on RS and shouldn't be used to justify a community ban. In regards to her previous short term blocks, those doesn't seem to be related with ANI, as Softlavender pointed out. prokaryotes (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is her repeated accusation of me that I was off-wiki asked by someone to block her is based on reliable sources? Despite the fact that I repeatedly said nobody asked me to block her.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was solely commenting on the reliable sources she cited in regards to content disputes. Initially it appears she was wrongly accused of socketing, and this should be weighted in her favor. As for the russian story, it seems to suggest it lacks proof (did not read the russian references). prokaryotes (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not repeat accusation, Ymblanter. I explained why I think so. There must be a reason, why do you falsely accuse me of edit-warring and "spreading fringe theories without sources" although I use reliable non-fringe sources and did not return my edits Cathry (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have very recent edit-warring at Talk:Glyphosate; you were edit-warring before I blocked you, for example, at Genetically modified crops and Genetically modified food. May be in your words, "did not return my edits" means "I never reverted more than once", but by stand definition, one revert in multiple articles is edit-warring. Concerning reliable sources, it was already said enough how reliable your sources are.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You did not say nothing about reliability. Why do you consider these sources non-reliable and fringe? As for edit-warring, indeed in two articles I returned my change, which was consensus text from GMO article (it was joyfully deleted only after my block and was there more than a year ). Still it did not go beyond 1RR. Cathry (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, indeed, I see that you are pretty careless with sources and can not say what is reliable and what is not (examples:[23][24]), and while you clearly state that you think your opponents are paid editors, I do not see immediate fringe contributions in you recent (October and end of September) edits in the articles (whereas your opponents apparently see them, but I leave it to them to comment). I apologize for stating an imprecise reason for your block.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is amusing. You apologize for false accusation and immediately bring another false accusation. About Neo-Nazism article, I reverted huge deletion which was performed by Claíomh Solais without consensus, these were not my adding, so I can not guarantee reliability of every source, though I saw that edit was disruptive and against talk page discussion. About Roman Shukhevych, how he is not Nazi collaborator, when he commanded Schutzmannschaft Battalion 201 and Nachtigall Battalion, and began voluntary training in the Abwehr in 1940 when he was citizen of Poland occupied by Nazis? Cathry (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel at this point I should stop responding to you. It is pretty much clear that you have difficulties understanding multiple basic policies of Wikipedia. Even if the site ban proposal fails, you will back here in no time, if you continue editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty much clear you have nothing to say. Personally I did not see in Wikipedia policies something like "Wikipedia encourages the whitewashing of fascists and multinational corporations" Cathry (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Joyfully deleted"? That assertion needs to rebutted from the world where facts actually count for more than conspiracy theories. Prior to that edit, right after Cathry had been blocked, I actually posted a note suggesting that the paragraph should not be deleted just because they had been blocked: [25]. I didn't have to do that, but I went out of my way to give Cathry a fair chance. My comment was met with numerous responses by other editors, who found legitimate fault with the content, and I then accepted that consensus. "Joy" had nothing to do with that. Of course, I have no confidence that Cathry will believe that I did it for those reasons, because of the very clear statement at Talk:Glyphosate that I am a "pro-industry" editor being paid by Monsanto, who engaged in a remarkably complex scheme of "good cop, bad cop" when I argued at length in favor of content that was critical of the company: [26]. I don't make proposals for site bans carelessly. Of course, the standard offer applies, and there are appeal mechanisms in place. But a supposed "second chance" at this step would be nothing more than subjecting to community to ongoing disruption. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you ever add negative findings to related article space? prokaryotes (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I sure did: [27]. And you are skating awfully close to violating your topic ban from GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was proposition by Aircorn to wait for me. Total time for discussion was 2 hours. But you did not wait for me or other editor and quickly went and removed info. Bursting into tears, of course Cathry (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - An all-out site ban is the worst possible solution as Softlavender has said with it failing WP:BMB. A topic ban is all that is necessary. It is unfair to immediately go to site ban when this is the first time it was reported to ANI. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 10:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is at least the second time she is featured at ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see. However, if it's the second time, it still probably shouldn't be the case in my opinion for the points Softlavender has already raised. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 10:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Limited blocks and topic/interaction bans should have been tried first before this was proposed. This level of response should only be used once other options have been exhausted. --Jayron32 11:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unfortunately, while the points that Softlavender are valid, the premise has been proven to be untrue. We could let this user return, and then see how it goes, by initiating a long but temporary block. However, the WP:STANDARDOFFER is open to anyone, and thanks to this, I support a site ban, of which she can obviously appeal, and show us her worthiness with that standard offer. In fact, I completely encourage Cathry to use those 6 months wisely, with the premise of the ban being placed on that. My name continues to not be dave (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
False accusation of vandalism
Whether or not the IP is Vote (X) for Change, they're enjoying themselves much too much. This stops now. Bishonen | talk 22:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
And now I see that the same editor has reverted my perfectly valid comment in this AfD discussion. I suppose I'll have to go back through my contribution history now to see what else that editor has done. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I edit revealing my IP address rather than hiding behind a silly pseudonym. Look at my contribution record if you don't believe me. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at your contributions, which is why I do not believe you. Again, what is your username? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I also knew he wouldn't be able to admit that. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea who User:Vote (X) for Change might be, never having heard of that editor before, and my edit to Jimbo's talk page was the first time that I have ever posted there. Once again, if you really looked at my contributions, rather than jumping to conclusions and lying about having done so, you would see that this is true. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed TQP's bogus closure per the thread below. If an admin thinks this is out-of-process, I'll accept that decision, but I think it would be appropriate for the IP's complaint to be addressed by someone with a little more credibility than this thread's original closer. Lepricavark (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Could you please provide some evidence as to why you think this IP is a sock of Vote (X) for Change? Callmemirela🍁talk 00:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Second this request. I've compared this IP user to your "relevant" page and I don't even see a connection. Vote (X) appears to be a serial IP-hopper easily recognizable by their distinct behavior. I can't even see where you're drawing any sort of similarities. To me, this is a static IP who doesn't go near (X)'s stomping grounds, with a clean block log and no apparent indicators of bad faith. Either you're seeing something the rest of us aren't seeing, in which case you need to tell us now, or you owe the IP an apology. Swarm♠ 01:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the suspicion is from the combination of circumstantial evidence, ranges from advocacy-like comment on Jimbo's talk page (the focal point of this report), high recent activity in WP:AN/I, previously expressing displeasure over an administrator, and finally overlapping with IP range of Vote (X) as an IP from London with Virgin Media. I wouldn't blame anyone for the initial false alarm, but a deeper look into the contribution history would seem to suggest it's a different person. Alex ShihTalk 05:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I waited until User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi had had a chance to post here before replying, but it is now beyond the "later this afternoon" when I expected a reply according the post below. None of the things that you identify in any way suggest that I might be a sockpuppet of that other user. Making one post at Jimbo's talk page that makes a perfectly valid point does not, I certainly don't have high activity at WP:AN/I, having contributed significantly to just one other thread recently where everyone except one agreed with me, my expression of displeasure about an admin nine months ago was also universally agreed with (and what regular Wikipedia editor hasn't felt displeasure about an admin at some point), and there are many hundreds of thousands of Virgin Media customers in London, let alone outside London where I am. None of this in any way approaches the sort of evidence that should lead to my edits being reverted as vandalism. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will the prisoner at the bar please stand Well. This seems, as EEng says, to have gone somewaht spectacularly Pete Tong over night. I have no idea what TQP was thinking of by getting so personally attached to the scenario, but the consequence was certainly inevitable. As for me- I must say in advance that I won't be able to get that involved until later this afternoon (UTC), but just a quickie for now. Firstly and fulsomely an apology is definitely owed to the IP if they are not and have no connection with Vote X. This is not a non-apology I hasten to add- more of a placeholder. On that, I would just like to take us back to where this began (Jimbo's talk, as someone pointed out). You see, if this IP isn't VXfC (and Alex Shih pretty cogently sums up my thought proceses on how it could be- especially combined with the fact that it is- sorry Swarm you're wrong on this- a dynamic IP rather than static, which effectively ticks all the Vote X boxes), then they rather unluckilly chose to defend them. See; my attention was originally drawn to Special:Contributions/88.104.33.149 ([28]) on JW's talk, as VXfC, and it was {incidentally on a side note you might want to compare User:Abnormallylong, who has interactions with a very similar IP with some crossover). As 88. says themselves, they were responding to that IPs treatment in their original complaint to JW. Special:Contributions/88.104.33.149 IP is also VXfC and is clearly related to Abnormallylong; I concluded that the Herts IP (who has started this thread) was not distinct. Incidentally, Paul August could you please not try and rush prople along just because you think they've had enough time? I've only just bloody woken up! And now I'm Right Away- back in a few hours. — fortunavelut luna 09:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the static vs. dynamic thing, I know that my address is defined as dynamic, because there is no guarantee that it will remain the same, but in practice it has remained the same since Virgin last upgraded my connection a couple of years ago. Every edit from that address except the one in 2007 was made by me. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Has now responded above. Paul August☎ 16:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]
A very poor response. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi presumably linked 88.104.33.149 to "Vote (x) for change" because of [29] and [30]. That removal was questioned by Viennese Waltz (User talk:Tevildo#VoteX) and red flags should have been raised by previous queries about the identification on the same user talk page in June and September 2016. Even allowing for Fortuna possibly not having seen this [31], which was removed by the talk page owner, he can do us all a favour (as far as identifying sockpuppets is concerned) by going back to sleep. 31.49.40.208 (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, you implied in your post yesterday morning that you would be able to get involved in this by 24 hours ago, but you still haven't responded despite making other edits. I try not to get upset by such trivial matters as Wikipedia editing, but do find it upsetting when someone impugns my integrity and refuses to withdraw. You have ruined my weekend. Please either raise an WP:SPI report about me or acknowledge that you made a silly mistake based on extremely tenuous so-called "evidence". In fact it's even more tenuous than I described in my reply to Alex Shih above, because I see from this page that you link above that that editor has used all of the major UK ISPs, so the fact that I am a Virgin Media customer doesn't come into it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course I am very sorry for ruining your weekend like that. It's also true I said I'd post again later; I realised- later- that of course there was little else necessary to say, as I had already accounted for my actions per (in this case, non-admin-)WP:ACCT- as an administrator had requested above. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 18:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You said that I was due an apology if I had no connection with that other editor. You still haven't acknowledged that you made a mistake in making that connection when a quick glance at my talk page and my contributions would have shown that there is no such connection. Any apology without such an acknowledgment is meaningless. Please do so so that this discussion can be closed, and most importantly, let us know that in the future you will base your actions on evidence rather than prejudice. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, I'm still waiting for that apology that you said I was due, not for ruining my weekend but for accusing me with no reasonable evidence of being a vandal and a sockpuppet. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; clearly, however since the previous conditions ceased to appertain, I was forced, as you will understand, to restructure the parametrical conditions of any subsequent reciprocation; viz. that an admin promulgated an unequivocal instruction and another, antiphonically yet disparately, acknowledged my contentment of the precedentally-required paradigm. Would you like to close this discussion or wait for it to archive? Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 15:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm asking is that you withdraw your accusations of vandalism, trolling and sockpuppetry, which you still haven't done. If you had behaved like this 200 years ago I would be demanding satisfaction in a different way. No admin has told you not to withdraw your accusations, and The Quixotic Potato is still using them to justify the behaviour that led to a block. I really don't understand why you find it so difficult to acknowledge that you were wrong. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well; clearly your threats of assault with a deadly weapon are a joke, although luckily where I'm from we know when to joke about such things- and when not to. Look. There are two points to be made, and they dove-tail neatly. An administrator told me: in which case you need to tell us now, or you owe the IP an apology (my emph.); I did the former. Following that, another administrator told me that my response seems more than adequate. I intend to take no more part in this rather tiresome conversation (have you noticed, btw, that no-one else has for over two days?), as it has gone on long enough. Many thanks for your understanding, — fortunavelut luna 19:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IP, time to move on with your life. CassiantoTalk 19:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm supposed to let false, baseless, accusations stand against me without the person who made them withdrawing them? This is supposed to be a collaborative project where we treat each other with respect. Don't tell me to move on when my integrity has been impugned without any redress. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that FIM is the first to treat people respectfully. He is a helpful editor and a bloody good laugh and will put himself out wherever he can. Now, I can't speak for this case, but I had one, literally a few days ago, whereby a lesser person to FIM threatened to take me, and others, to ARBCOM because we dared to go against them at an AfD (which I can't mention) and they became upset when I offered them some advice on their talk page. An administrator (who I will also not name) decided that they wanted to become involved at the AfD and told three people (me included, oddly enough) to knock it off. Sadly, by that time, other spin-off disputes had started and said administrator, who I approached as an involved admin, decided that he was now bored of being involved and flounced off telling me that he hoped his "career" on Wikipedia would not involve him "having to run into [my] ass again". Charming. All I wanted was an apology from the editor I was in dispute with for making threats towards me and I believed the administrator could help me achieve this. He didn't, which I wasn't, in hindsight, altogether surprised about. The point of all this is: don't waste your time seeking out apologies. FIM is not at fault here and he is a good person to have in your side. That, sadly, is where the similarity to my case ends, as the person I was in a dispute with turned out to confirm my suspicions that he was a bit of a prat. CassiantoTalk 21:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Damnit, and I was really hoping never to run into your ass again--lo and behold, you ping me telepathically. Man. I did half a job, which is more than I usually do, and this is my thanks.... Tragic. Cassianto, you've been a big meanie to me for years, and you're asking me to get an apology on your behalf, from an editor with whom I have never had a positive interaction with? Happy days... Drmies (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not playing this out here again, Drmies. You were involved; I came to you as you were involved; you did nothing as you no longer wanted to be involved; I was disappointed and told you so; enough said. I'm not a meanie to everyone, contrary to popular belief, so read into that what you will. You've made your feelings clear. Happy days. CassiantoTalk 22:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The non-admin close of my discussion above was clearly inappropriate. I have no idea who User:Vote (X) for Change might be, but would welcome an WP:SPI case to clear that up, and, as I have already said, my record speaks for itself in that I am not a vandal or a troll. The irony here is that the original thread on Jimbo's talk page that sparked this off was about how badly editors who choose to reveal their IP addresses are treated, and that two editors here have demonstrated exactly that. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are indefinitely banned from editing the English Wikipedia under any account or IP address. Appeals, should you desire to make one, may be directed to the Arbitration Committee and their Ban Appeals Subcommittee. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not banned, because I'm very obviously not the person that was banned. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhhh, and what exactly are you asking from admins? Callmemirela🍁talk 21:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some level of normalcy I'd imagine. FYI guys, this doesn't look like Vote (X). -- zzuuzz(talk) 21:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking for these two editors to be prevented from harrassing me by accusing me without evidence of being a vandal or a troll. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I answered that question before you made your invalid close of my thread above. I might as well as you what your IP address is. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See my contributions. I've been on this IP address for nearly two years, and I've given on my talk page the two addresses that I used prior to that. I'm sorry, but I don't have a record of my addresses beyond the nearly four years covered there. Is that compulsory to avoid the gross violation of WP:AGF that you are committing here? And, if your 127.0.0.1 was meant as a joke, it isn't funny. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
127.0.0.1 Which other IP addresses have you used? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is really not a productive line of enquiry. I know it can be difficult to tell sometimes, but can we not remove comments unless the user is banned? If in doubt, see if there's any admin who is prepared to make the block. -- zzuuzz(talk) 21:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The user is banned. You can propose that socks should not be reverted unless they're blocked/banned as well, but I am not sure if that is a good idea. Maybe you can start a discussion at the policy section of the village pump? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who is banned? Vote (X) or this user? There's little similarity between the two. -- zzuuzz(talk) 22:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly not me who is banned. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflicts) See my contributions. I've been on this IP address for nearly two years, and I've given on my talk page the two addresses that I used prior to that. I'm sorry, but I don't have a record of my addresses beyond the nearly four years covered there. Is that compulsory to avoid the gross violation of WP:AGF that you are committing here? And, if your 127.0.0.1 was meant as a joke, it isn't funny. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am too pessimistic. Maybe I should've doubted FIM more. I noticed that after vandalfighting for a while people become really pessimistic about IP editors. I'll do some research when I am back at a desktop computer. If you are genuinely curious about why people mistrust some IP editors then I would recommend spending some time fighting vandalism (but using some of the tools does require having an account). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but there's no "maybe" about it. By your actions you have prevented me from improving Wikipedia this evening, but rather involved me in a completely unnecessary argument here. And those actions include your bare-faced lie that you had looked at my contributions before starting this ridiculous witch hunt. You really need to change your thinking completely if you are to be an asset to Wikipedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Seems I was too kind. I'll go back to being my normal jaded self again. Good luck collaborating with others. If you act like this then it is irrelevant if you are Vote X or not. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the IP. There is nothing funny or "maybe" about making potentially false accusations, especially sockpuppetry. Either you provide diffs for your accusations or it can be considered a personal attack. There nothing to lol about. Callmemirela🍁talk 22:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What for? For being upset about accusations with no apparent evidence? You should provide evidence or apologize. Paul August☎ 23:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read the above. The IP owes me an apology. Stop wasting my time. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Someone is seriously full of themself. Callmemirela🍁talk 23:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the policy. Are you? Not based on above and below. Callmemirela🍁talk 23:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that (((The Quixotic Potato))) is a little out of line here. They're throwing around accusations and presenting no evidence. I've looked at the IP's contributions and they're good for the most part, some misguided but not vandalism. On the otherhand (((The Quixotic Potato))) editing history is much more colourful than the IPs. I also think (((The Quixotic Potato)))'s closure of the IP's previous section was completely improper and they severely overstepped their editing bounds by non-admin closing such a section they were heavily involved in. Canterbury Tailtalk 23:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is unlikely that your comment achieves anything constructively, so I am going to selectively ignore people here now. Stop wasting my time. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The IP editor's comments to Jimbo's talk page that started this whole thing also seem perfectly reasonable and it appears the IP is being hounded by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Quixotic at this point. I call for both users to cease what their are doing around this IP and apologise. This is not acceptible Wikipedian behaviour from two long term editors who should know better. And BTW Quixotic, people questioning your behaviour on here is not a waste of your time, in fact your actions so far are a waste of everyone else's time. Canterbury Tailtalk 23:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you to stop wasting my time. You should apologize to me for your false accusation, and mirela and the IP should apologize to me for their personal attacks. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a waste of your time, you do not have to keep responding. Nobody is likely to give you the last word, which seems to be what you are after, while you persist with this arrogant attitude. Lepricavark (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be wrapped up with a 24–72 hour block of TQP while the IP's complaint above is investigated and/or addressed. I have no doubt that FIM is acting in good faith. I can't say the same for TQP. Lepricavark (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems I was too kind. Again. Heck, I'll forgive you again. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what, my good man, am I being forgiven? Lepricavark (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either provide evidence for your accusations, or apologize (everyone makes mistakes). Those really are the only two honorable courses of action available to you. It's as simple as that. Paul August☎ 23:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I forgive you, because you would act differently if you knew what I know. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that's enough of that. I've blocked TQP for making continued accusations without evidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I was just about to do so myself. Though I wasn't thinking of being quite so lenient. Canterbury Tailtalk 00:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was real artistry in the way that thread combined the grace of a ballet with the fascination of an inexorable train wreck. EEng 05:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have at least one admin who's an expert at spotting Vote(X)'s garbage, and I've asked him to look into this. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of me, except I was much less forward that this. Anyway, the point being TQP was out of line and responding like that in kind didn't help them much; they just need a break and cool down I believe. I can imagine what EEng means, that's my daily livelihood. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 18:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Faulty grammar 'corrections', combative behavior from SoCal IP user
On August 18, this person was searching Wikipedia for the misspellings "whote" and "wite" for the purpose of correcting them. Thesetwo corrections are quite wrong, and they are within the first dozen edits.
The same day, TheOldJacobite started defending against a swarm of this person's poor quality edits at the Zero Dark Thirty article, eventually using 11 different IP6 addresses, all starting with 2605:E000:9161:A500 in the recent months (back in April it was 2605:E000:9152:8F00.) After ten days of the nonsense, Scribolt worked to repair the damage. Unfortunately, this IP6 editor has worn out the patience of the page watchers, and the plot section now suffers for it.
It's only today that I became aware of this editor when they attempted to fix the grammar at some music articles. When I reverted the poor quality changes, I noticed that they were immediately restored with hostile comments in edit summaries and on talk pages. I looked further and saw that this person has been spoiling for a fight at the Ishqbaaaz talk page at which Cyphoidbomb said, "In the future if you could avoid adding multiple edit requests as you did, that would be appreciated." The angry reaction by this person was to add 12 new edit requests.
If there is a protect on an article it is not my fault what means I have to suggested edits. I am not aware that every suggestion has to be acted upon. And the suggestion that has been repeatedly made by so many other WP editors was that a registered user name be established. Again, is it oir is nit not the policy of WP to not look upon non-registered user name participants as just as legitimate as registered who tend to be more long term users and editors of WP. This just goes to my original contention that there exists in WP a two-phere mentality particularly when it comes to contentious actions such as the matter of this board. That in the long run people who use registered user names are perceived differently than non-registered user named.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At my user page, this person admitted to disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point when they wrote, "I always put something in to see just how unwelding can someone be about their position. Sometimes it is presenting a format out of kilter and sometimes it is a misspelled word."[32]
Please be advised that your characterization is incorrect. It was a test to better understand your personality and how it manifests. That is not the same as being disruptive but you are the status quo so I imagine that will have more influence that whatever position I could take.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think communication with this person could be focused more clearly if a rangeblock were set in place on 2605:E000:9161:A500/64, while allowing talk page access. Binksternet (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, Binksternet. Interestingly (to me), this appears to be the same person who has been busting Drmargi's chops over at Talk:Victoria (TV series), dropping voluminous diatribes that don't genuinely seem focused on arriving at an understanding, rather, it seems like they're stonewalling improvements by draining editors of their time with a lot of confusing, linguistic dick-waving. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when you have calmed down from your venting of anger because that language really is not even in an anonymous environment suitable. I would think that you as what I perceive your image to be portrayed as a seasoned WP contributor would know that. I hope you do not take this wrongly. Maybe, you had a bad week or day.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the truly odd part is that this individual has horrible grammar. Lepricavark (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For an example of which, see this thread on my talk page. After this gobbledegoop I took a look at some of the IPs edits, and reverted some of them, and the IP retaliated by making bullshit edits to an article I've done a lot of work on. This was 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6, the first on Binksternet's list.Thanks to Binksternet for chasing down the other IP numbers this person is using. They're obviously NOTHERE and should be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The AN discussion about Drmagi's problem IP is here. That IP was 2605:E000:9161:A500:7C06:FE51:3E78:B311 who is not on Binksternet's list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: I originally thought the editor was using a complaint letter generator to respond to Drmargi. I had second thoughts about that, but the language is so bizarre. It's like someone was trying to write lawyer-speak in their native tongue, then mechanically translating it to English. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean you believe that I composed in a non-English language then used an internet assisted program to translate into your language?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me understand if this is correct. I am being held responsible for the manner in which the technology works with WP in regard to how an IP address is recognized by WP? Because it is no great conspiracy on my part about how that functions. I enter the sight and whatever it recognizes it does on its own. I believe it is recognized by WP that users do not have to register to be a contributor? Or by the surprise about the number of "IP's" that this is not true? I have held on to this ability and now it seems I am being accused of being to proud and combative not to register a username? A review of actions by this board show that this trait seems to be prevalent with those that find fault with others. I recognize that within those that have a very high interest in WP find that a blasphemous statement but I cannot help what is prevalent and had no improved over the years despite WP stating that a contributor or even a user must register a username to be part of this community. There seems to be a cookie cutter app used by many at WP that seems to believe that registering a user name is the answer to the situation? How can on the one hand say it is official WP policy and guideline not to require a registered username yet on the other hand such as in this situation because of the technology of WP issue multiple IP's then turn around and say that there seems to be some thing wrongs with that many IP's? And it is merely the technology in motion? I guess there may be a finer point to this that you may be angry that this has happened? Again, that is not my responsibility and something I have absolutely no control. If there is anger about that it should be directed at WP's technology. But that may be immaterial as you all seem to be upset. And nothing will change that.Or is that going to be interpreted as a statement of being challenging to the status quo?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The complaints have been about your edits and your comments, not about the number of IP addresses used - those are presented simply so that a range block can be made to stop you from editing further, if that is the WP:CONSENSUS of this discussion. And thanks very much for presenting precisely the problem with your language, which is nearly incomprehensible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is suppose to be a civil discussion with politeness and respect: "busting Drmargi's chops", "dick-waving", "bullshit edits". And that just seem the be the first statements out of the gate. 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
sp suppose = supposed?(For the onlooker: the IP came to my talk page, quoted a 2 year and 4 month old comment I had made in which I had misspelled "security", and asked "sp securty=security?" Soon after the IP was making retaliatory edits to an article I've edited heavily.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting addition to this proceeding. Is that often done? Although he came from over the hill can never said that I found the man all that appealing. paranoid, yes. And to think that his "official presidential papers" will probably never be housed at his presidential library because of his legal problems. Now will someone else be adding a pic of Raygun?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would find that someone saying the issue is totally over edits rather than IP's failing to recognize that within WP is an element that prides itself not on letting people function without registered usernames name but someone perceiving that the use of a registered username solves the problem at hand. Now this may have something to do with the availability of more experienced WP users using the app that uses canned language. When you combine someone's experienced as expressed on the pages that this person creates (not the articles) listing their accomplishment with this "command" as set forth by this canned language there does tend to be presented an air of authority. And as such wrapped around the content of that canned language that a registered user name somehow obliterates any perceived misunderstand is really someone not understanding the full impact of just what it is that they have done. Either you know that it is going on or oblivious to that fact which then calls question to your ability to evaluate and respond. Now, again, to the status quo that is blasphemous. There is a potential conflict there that you may not be aware that is going on and as a more advanced WP user you should just as you expect less expereicned WP users not to step on your toes. 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's about your problematic edits and your combative behavior. The only thing a registered username would do in this instance is to make it slightly easier to block you. Binksternet (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that you are speaking for the status quo. You see nothing wrong with your approach or behavior. Do you truly understand the impact of canned apps? The reaction makes it appear you see nothing wrong with the status quo? And again, bringing up that statement is to the status quo blasphemous. How dare you say that there is something wrong with us when we are the authority>2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let me understand this, Zero Dark Forty is faulty despite when the original issue was raised another editor complimented the tight expression? Could you recognize the inherently wrong direction the plot was going before its current status? Can it be recognized that when someone does not understand the context of a subject many times puffery makes it presence. The excess of detail shows that many who worked on this plot before could not wrap their understanding around how understanding the non-westerners was the means to understanding the plot of this film and getting rid of puffery. But instead all this other stuff that is detail, something experienced by the westerners and thus understandable was getting in the way to a -700 word plot. When the issue was raised about plot content another WP editor praised the tightness of the expression. All the detail was there to be used but not the detail that would give a -700 word plot. What was being missed was the experience through the non-western eye. At one time in the plot there was expressed in the same statement that someone was being followed yet were not identified as a suspect although it was clear that they traced the person all the way from being in a position to receive and send messages and being at the compound. Yet all this stuff about spy-craft puffery emerged without getting to the point that cultural and personal habits were key to getting a -700 word plot. If you are unwilling to accept that the approach taken is not the best yet when someone else insists it is there fault for you being upset? It seems that all the responsibility is being placed on the newbie instead of the more seasoned WP user relying on the canned apps. It sounds like there is a serious culture problem within WP as how to approach people. But then again, in the land of status quo, that is blasphemous. You get reprimanded for that. 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - took a look through the ranges and it doesn't seem like anyone else is using 2605:E000:9161:A500/64 or 2605:E000:9152:8F00/64, so a rangeblock on both should hopefully put a stop to it. That said, I'm not going to do it since...well...I don't know how yet, among other reasons. ansh666 06:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that I was not trying to fool people and that you have just apologized on behalf o WP for that innuendo having been made?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A review of dealings with even suspected sock puppies etc seems to bring people out of the woodwork as if there is some conspiracy to undermine WP. Just because the internet is the love of those that love anonymity does not mean that they are set out to act against anyone's interests and to have postulated that thought is just part and parcel to the other forms of character assassination used at WP.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, if you were editing using a single account instead of IPs, you'd have been blocked long ago. ansh666 06:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my responsibility how WP technology works. You do not seem to accept that? And how do you base you assessment? Perception because you certainly have yet to provide except through that one action naturally would have followed thr other. I know that will make you upset but that is not my responsibility. Do us a favor in d=these discussions. Show up to give examples rather than mere mud throwing. Your other compatriate have done that well enough. We do not need people to come out of the wood work and using these avenues to vent anger only shows how bsse one can be in an anonymous environment. It is not as if you as my neighbor show up at a community meeting to say to my face what is it that you feel is the problem. Venting anger is really counter productive to these presumably civil and courteous proceedings. You have failed the mark. Would you like to return to your venting to clarify what you can cite as examples of support?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on the validity or need for a block, it seems like a rangeblock for 2605:e000:9161:a500:0:0:0:0/64 would take care of this. Based on edits since Sept. 1, 2017, this was the only (or at least primary) range used. Edit: Looks like Ansh666 beat me to the punch. See their comment above. EvergreenFir(talk) 07:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given a small sampling of this user's edits, as well as their persistence while this conversation is happening ([33]), I support a rangeblock for persistent disruption, obnoxious WP:IDHT, and being a general waste of time (wallsoftext). EvergreenFir(talk) 07:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You do not agree that child artists is an ambiguous term that does not necessarily characterize the situation at its best?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our brief user talk interaction[34][35] seems relevant to this thread, as it goes to the IP's mind-set vis-a-vis collaboration. I don't feel my request was unreasonable - your mileage may vary. ―Mandruss☎ 08:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess now I am going to ever be the more contentious because WP's forms are not user friendly? On the one hand I am deemed incompetent and yet on the other competent enough to do what is wanted by the status quo. WP really needs to determine just what it want to achieve. Slapping the person on one side of the face is not productive for having done something and then slapped on the other for not having done something?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP is in serious need of determining just what is it that it wants to achieve if its user forms are so sensitive as to be non-user friendly.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 09:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since they are still doing their so-called grammar edits, all of which have to be checked to see that they haven't added errors where none existed (or substituted new errors for old ones), a block sooner rather than later would be good. They are a time sink, and it doesn't really matter whether they are incapable of understanding people's advice and pointers to policy, or if they merely choose to ignore what other editors say. The non sequitur answers here don't help. --bonadeacontributionstalk 09:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The underlying situation here is that when it comes to blaming someone that usually goes toward the lesser experienced WP participants because the status quo is unwilling to let WP's reputation faulter. Just now, I have found that a seasoned WP editor justified their reverting of a grammatical correction that I made based on the wrong assumption that I had imposed a spelling error when in fact if that editor had reviewed what had been done before hitting the revert app they would have known that I had nothing to do with the misspelling of "released". Just as it has been said time and time again within this forum, WP is not a place for innovation and even within other discussion on this very page it has been said that actions have been taken to protect WP, not find the truth but protect WP. This is what comes from an organization that promotes ONLY from within. Talk about stifling debate. But then that is a blasphemous statement coming from the non-status quo. All the dancing that the status c=quo wants to do will not change that perception.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, I get the idea from the latest immediate attention to edits I have made that I am not welcomed but at least get off the auto revert app and read what is it that you are reverting especially when you reintroducre misspellings.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6: Use rangeblock 2605:E000:9161:A500/64 internet again network. You are sockpuppet like Gabucho181 and can bots it revent edited incorrect edits. MarkSewath (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 got called a sockpuppet. MarkSewath (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, you are indiscriminately reverting everything without regard to what has been corrected which includes the misspellings that you reintroduce. I am suppose to present a defense dealing with these bizarre personalities? The guy trhows at me the 3r rule in response to him indiscrimately reverting as if the world is coming to an end. Boy, it really does not take much to ruffle the feather in this pillow case. This is so bizarre and you all call yourself sane. Well, that explains one missing glue bottle.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2605, the Wikipedia project's goal is supposedly to give everyone in the world an encyclopedia in their own language, but for some reason the English Wikipedia has almost(?) as much content as the rest of the world's language's Wikipedia's put together. Meanwhile, the other languages are badly underrepresented so we're missing our goal of serving the readers of those languages. Could I suggest that if your native language is not English, that you contribute to your own language's Wikipedia? That way you'd be helping the global Wikipedia effort in a way that monoglot English speakers (most of us here) cannot. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that turned into a circus. MarkSewath started reverting all the gnomish work that the IP6 person had been performing, with the reverts speeding along at about nine per minute, a speed which makes it impossible to see if you are helping to build the encyclopedia. Mark also accused the IP6 person of being a sockpuppet of Gabucho181,[36] which seems unlikely to me. Callanecc then blocked the IP for two days, which raised a storm of righteous protest from that person, and 90 minutes later Yamla revoked talk page access. To me, this action does not address the core concern which is that our IP6 editor from SoCal is a boorish timesink, making an unknown number of faulty changes to grammar and spelling, and provoking conflict in every interaction with other editors. The style of Gabucho181 is completely different than that. I would be happy to see a block placed on the IP6 range while allowing talk page access. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is not Gabucho181. Gabucho181 is located in South America, does not respond with wallsoftext, and does not have this level of English proficiency. Moreover, Gabucho181 likes to troll directly, antagonizing users and purposefully vandalizing pages. They perseverate typically on cartoons like Dan Vs. or Gravity Falls and have not been known to make grammar changes like this.
Given the geolocation, I'd be more inclined to think this was either |Fangusu or the SW Cali vandal. Though the latter is not known to respond the way this user has. EvergreenFir(talk) 17:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness. I read this late last night and there were a couple comments, now it's all taken off. I'm not sure there's much I can contribute other than putting a few thoughts on the record just in case they may be needed in future. My encounter with the now-blocked IP was at Victoria (TV series). In its first episode, a court lady-in-waiting is forced to undergo a gynecological exam by court physicians when the Queen is lead to believe the lady is pregnant by an adversary of the Queen. Despite the fact the lady had no choice in the matter, and events followed which portrayed her as submitting under force, the IP removed the word force from the episode description, claiming that absent physical force in the manner of slaves, she wasn't forced to undergo the examination. I provided the Oxford dictionary (given this is a British show) definition of force, which includes action against will, and he let loose the dogs of war in a series of walls of text that are substantively unreadable. He adopts some lawyer-esque strategies that lead me to think he's either a para-legal worker of some sort or perhaps a law student who knows just enough to be dangerous: everything is on the attack, but at it's heart, simply says, "I'm going to limit the definition of force to a specific sort of physical force, and preclude the description of what happened to Lady Flora as force." As I noted at the time, this materially alters the motivation for the sequence of events that followed, and mis-represents what was done to the lady. His response was simply more words, and the addition of two additional threads picking at additional verbal nits.
My thanks to Cyphoidbomb for his help. I was told this might be an IP from the UK (despite the geolocation to the U.S., the IP uses some British English) who has argued against similar assaults on women, but apparently, that's not the case. Cyphoid stepped in when I hit a wall trying to get the issue resolved once it became apparent the IP was not discussing in good faith but simply playing word games. I'd also add, BMK, that User:2605:E000:9161:A500:7C06:FE51:3E78:B311 made one post in the thread, but the rest came from the IP above. Oh, and whoever thinks he's an academic, not on your Nelly. I'm an academic and this guy isn't playing in anything like the same pool. Oh, and one last odd thing: depending upon which geolocation site is used, the IP resolves to either Los Angeles County or Herndon, Virginia via Time Warner Cable. There's probably a reasonable explanation why, but I suspect he's actually in VA, since that location is more precise. ----Dr.Margi✉ 18:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmargi:: Thanks, I realized my error some time late last night, after the IP had been blocked. I also agree that when I went through Gabucho181's LTA page last night, it didn't seem much like this IP's behavior at all. Still, the IP did need to be blocked as an obvious troll and a timesink, despite the small percentage of their edits which were helpful. A net negative for sure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh a compliment from Ken? That is absolutely shocking but accepted. Thank you. Now what about all those reverts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:9161:a500:bc89:17b1:2fd6:dd67 (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the person's tendency to prefer British English, I believe this comes from learning English in India. Many of the articles that interest the person are related to Indian culture. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you say that; I suspected the same thing just based on his syntax and word choice. ----Dr.Margi✉ 20:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone check into WP technology to understand why is it that I am bale to edit? I would not want people to think that I have somehow cracked the system. This is how I have access WP all along with all the varied assigned IP's. See Mark--no conspiracy.2605:E000:9161:A500:BC89:17B1:2FD6:DD67 (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You truly do not get it? I am doing absolutely nothing differne than in the past several months when editing WP. I go onto the website and this is what happens. It issues me a new account with a clean contiubtions list page. You make it out to sound as if I hav cracked the system. WP needs to lok ointo their syetm because there is a failure! Are you all conspiratorical idiots?
Ah, and by the way. All AOL/Timwe Warner accounts go through Herndon VI--It is their corporiate headquesters?. Am I to be held responsible for the failure of WP's system?2605:E000:9161:A500:BC89:17B1:2FD6:DD67 (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the user is evading a block, I have applied a /64 range block for the same length of time as the block on the single IP address. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's really what should have happened in the first place. Hopefully, troll-be-gone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was a latecomer to this, I’m afraid; the block evasion was obvious so... Having looked at this wall of text more closely, I see that the user has been disruptive and a block is warranted on those grounds. No comment on whether this is Gabucho181. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have renewed the /64 rangeblock for 72 hours for the resumption of disruptive behaviour. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. A note for those who reverted this user’s edits here for ‘evading a block’, the block had in fact expired at 12:45 today. Nonetheless it was further disruptive behaviour hence the further 72 hours rangeblock (which expires on 15:18, 12 October). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read about this "discussion" on the internet and could not believe that it was true; is the proper way that Wikipedia deals with people that it feels are threat? That seams rather limited in your scope to exclude someone from defending themselves and at the same time being label contentious. It would seem that if you accuse someone then you have to leave the system open for rebuttal.76.169.36.143 (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above IP 76.169.36.143 is our block evading time-waster and troll. I just tagged the IP as being used to evade the block on Special:Contributions/2605:E000:9161:A500:0:0:0:0/64. If the IP continues to edit here it should be blocked as well. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To the blocked IP
To the blocked IP: You are laboring under a fundamental misapprehension. When an editor is blocked, if they have an account, that account is mechanically prevented from editing. If they are using a single IP, that IP is mechanically prevented from editing. If they are what we refer to as an "IP-hopper" -- that is, someone who is either deliberately or through the action of their ISP-provider, using a different IP every time they log on, then a range-block can be applied to mechanically prevent IPs in a particular range from editing. However, the block is not for the specific account, IP, or IP range, the block is for the person doing the editing, which is this case is you. If, through no fault of your own, or by your deliberate machinations (it doesn't matter which), you are able to log on and find that you are not mechanically prevented from editing, you have a moral obligation not to take advantage of that situation. That is, you, yourself should restrict yourself from editing.Now, if you are actually interested in helping Wikipedia, you will follow this restriction, because by evading your block (which is what editing when you're blocked but not mechanically prevented from editing is called), you risk longer sanctions, up to and including eventually being banned from the site, in which case any edit you make can be reverted at any time by any editor regardless of its value. If you want to participate here, you must honor your block.If, however, you're only interested in trolling and being disruptive, one of the best ways to show that is not to honor your block by continuing to evade it simply because there are holes in the system. You may believe that it's our responsibility to physically prevent you from editing when blocked, but it's actually your responsibility to show the Wikipedia community that you value being a part of it enough to follow the community's rules and policies.So, the ball is entirely in your court. I have no doubt that you can continue to find ways of editing here illicitly, but by doing so you are sending a gigantic "Screw you" message to every editor here who endeavors to follow the rules to the best of their abilities. Such behavior will inevitably end up with your being banned, either by name or by description as a "Long Term Abuser." It may take a while, since Wikipedians are notorious for being fair-minded and giving editors many more breaks than I, personally, would give them, but it will happen.So, make your decision: do you want to contribute, or do you prefer to be a pariah? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the section above, a user has been engaging in OR and poorly sourced list entries on List of terrorist incidents in September 2017 and List of terrorist incidents in October 2017 (as well as other related lists). Repeatedly, this user adds entries where the source does not either explicitly call the event terrorism or ascribe the event to a "violent non-state actor for political, religious, or ideological motives".
Despite warnings and attempts to communicate on the user's talk page, Hezdor continues the behavior. It appears that this user feels they need to add anything listed on the "global terrorism database page".
The behavior is continuing, hence this ANI report. Diffs: [37] (removed [38]), [39] (removed [40]), [41] (removed [42]), [43] (removed [44]). Some edits contained copy-paste from sources ([45] and [46] as seen in this edit).
Submitting now (computer crashed but thankfully saved this). Will add more. Done for now. EvergreenFir(talk) 05:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir: I've blocked them. They haven't responded, but the main problem is that they've added large amounts of copyright material to articles. Of course they can be unblocked if they show they understand the problem and show some evidence of how they will fix it. Doug Wellertalk 15:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding that they have never responded to messages on their talk page or taken part in a discussion elsewhere. They were warned in May by User:NeilN that if they didn't respond they might be blocked. They are a single purpose account only editing these lists, and I don't know how much copyvio will have to be cleared up. Doug Wellertalk 15:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Joefromrandb (talk·contribs) has a long block log for disruptive editing and incivility. He was released from his last incivility block 15 days ago. He's made 37 edits to user talk pages in total since that block, 2 of them, nothing but incivility and battleground approach to interacting with others:
At what point do we say we've had enough? Toddst1 (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indef Block - This is a long term pattern of incivility towards other users and against WP:BATTLE. This editor seems unwilling to change and is being disruptive to the project with edit warring and incivility. Per WP:BLOCK, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". This is a clear cut case of disruption to Wikipedia. -- Danetalk 19:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddst1: (edit conflict) Thank you for bringing this to our attention - Joefromrandb has been repeatedly warned and blocked for similar behaviour, and does not seem to want to change. I have blocked them indefinitely, as this behaviour is not conducive to this collaborative project. I'm disappointed its had to come to this, we should all be able to have differing opinions without reverting to incivility -- There'sNoTime(to explain) 19:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moved here from User talk:Joefromrandb@There'sNoTime: Thanks, and with respect too I do agree with your point. For anyone that's watching this page/coming across this page later, indefinite does not mean infinite, and Joefromrandb can be unblocked by uninvolved administrator once there is a consensus to do so. I disagree with indef being issued so quickly (despite of the long history) without hearing the input from Joefromrandb at latest WP:AN/I report, but we will wait for more input from others. Alex ShihTalk 19:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also thought the block was a bit too quick. As Bishonen said on Joe's talk page, Todd's civility warning could be reasonably interpreted as a provocation. On the other hand, Joe really does need to tone down the incivility. It's a difficult matter dealing with an uncivil individual. Warning him to stop will only further rile him up, but ignoring the problem does not make it go away. I therefore can't oppose the block very strongly; my only concern is that it came awfully quickly. Maybe Joe would get the message more clearly if there was a strong community consensus in favor of the block. Lepricavark (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)You say Joe has made three edits to user talk pages in total since the previous block, Toddst1? That's very inexact; I make it seven, most of them to his own page. The two edits that you diff above as examples of "nothing but incivility and battleground approach to interacting with others" are also to his own page, responses to one post from Bkonrad and one from you, where he requests first one and then the other of you to fuck off. The context is a quarrel between the three of you on WP:AN3. The post from you was a templated NPA warning about Joe's rude response to Bkonrad. I don't think getting aggravated in such a context is heinous. And no, Toddst, "Please fuck off and go away", that you warned Joe about, isn't a personal attack. I'm sorry, but it just isn't, because there's nothing personal about it. Read WP:NPA. Your NPA warning about it, taken in the context of what seems to be a long conflict between Joe and you, appears frankly to have been designed to elicit another rude, impatient reply, and you got it. There'sNoTime, I think you were too quick with your indef, and I don't support it. Please don't close this thread yet. If we can spend weeks debating the indefinite block of the egregious POV-pusher Hidden Tempo, and end by appointing a fucking panel of editors to close that discussion, I think we can weigh the fate of an actual long-time useful content contributor for more than a few minutes. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I miscounted. I mistakenly thought the 9/24 edits were before his block expired. My apologies. Toddst1 (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad the WP:DOUBLESTANDARD is being upheld. Todd's civility warning could be reasonably interpreted as a provocation. Yes, how very provocative!Toddst1 (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously not see how warning someone in an uncivil mood is likely to further fan the flames? Lepricavark (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice - make excuses. Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making excuses. I've had my differences with Joe in the past and his behavior is highly problematic. I'm trying to help you see how your response might not have been ideal. Lepricavark (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I also had disagreements with Joe, but Toddst1, "nice--make excuses"? I think Joe's response is appropriate here as well. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you all for your opinions, but I stand firmly by my block. Continued blatant incivility is causing this project to get more and more toxic. Despite possible provocation, this has been a continued and unwavering course of incivility and I believe an indefinite block, which allows Joefromrandb to state a case as to how they will continue to contribute in a civil manner like the majority of our long-time useful content contributors manage, is the best way forward -- There'sNoTime(to explain) 20:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the block was too quick. The point of bringing an issue to AN/I is that the best course of action can be discussed. There was no time for anyone to actually do that, and Joefromrandb's action did not fall into any category of needing an immediate indef (apart from anything else, he hasn't edited for over 15 hours). Note: I don't believe I have had any previous dealings with this editor. Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can put my hands up and say yes, this was a quick block - personally, I don't see how a discussion would affect the outcome. I'm happy to be proven wrong and will of course make way for any consensus that forms -- There'sNoTime(to explain) 20:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Nice day for shopping isn't it? (UPDATE: Even more shopping.) So far, Toddst1 has taken Jfromrndb to ANEW, now ANI, and in the meantime Oshwah's talk page- with the misleading claim that "he's made 3 edits to user talk pages"- and as I pointed out, two of these were to his own page. For a start we allow a greater degree of latitude on editors' own pages, secondly, Toddst1 leaving a 'No personal attacks' only-warning (as a response to what JfrRNB said on their own talk) was clearly designed to encourage them to respond in kind, and thus provide an excuse to bring them here. WP:BAITING applies; either that or it shows phenomonally bad judgement on Toddst1's part. Either way, ANI is getting played like a stradivarius. And frankly, as has been pointed out elsewhere, blocking a few minutes into an ANI, that's had almost no eyes upon it apart from involved parties is having a bit of a tin bath really. No offence. There was absolutely NO reason for Toddst to keep pestering the other editor on his own page- unless, of course, the purpose was this- and a block. — fortunavelut luna 20:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slapping an NPA warning on a pissed off editor is only going to rile that editor up even more and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out - If TNT came and slapped any template on my talkpage I too would've told them to fuck off - Personal messages go a long way and a lot further than templated messages,
The block should've been 2 weeks max IMHO, Also Indeffing someone 24 minutes after an ANI report was raised is asking for trouble. –Davey2010Talk 20:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting I didn't template the editor (bar the block template), though thank you for your comments -- There'sNoTime(to explain) 20:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think he got you mixed up with Toddst1. Lepricavark (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops sorry I did indeed get you mixed up, Obviously I meant Toddst1, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the block was too hasty too. There was no immediate need to do anything, and a discusson-based consensus on what to do would be a much better idea. I also see a bit of this going on here too. Take this as a !vote to undo the indef block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it is bleeping UNCIVIL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the point is that an NPA warning was incorrect and only really amounted to poking someone when they were already in a bad mood - and that escalated the matter. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, if an uninvolved administrator would like to undo the indef block I won't object. I only ask that they ping me and that they work towards ensuring Joefromrandb cuts out the incivility -- There'sNoTime(to explain) 21:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my handful of interactions with Joefromrandb he's been an angry prick, but this block was way too precipitate. If nothing else, the subject of a block is more likely to accept its legitimacy (and that matters, if we want him to accept he needs to change his ways) if it comes after a community discussion. He's mostly constructive but he needs to cut out the caffeine, or something. EEng 22:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look at this and am leaning towards two conclusions. First, there is a plausible argument that TNT may have pulled the block trigger a bit quickly and w/o giving other editors an opportunity to chime in. But I'd not call it outside his discretion or otherwise improper. Secondly Joefromrandb's track record is itself very strong evidence that this is a user who just doesn't play and get along well with others. Even taking into consideration that a couple of his blocks were lifted early, we are looking at twelve blocks over roughly five years. Whether or not TNT might have been better off waiting a bit, I haven't read a credible argument that the block is excessive. Given the background I honestly am a bit surprised that they haven't incurred a long term block before. I'm strongly inclined to affirm the block, with the stipulation that Joefromrandb could apply for a standard offer in six months. But the OP asks a good question that no one has answered, "At what point do we say we've had enough?" I'd say now is a good point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for block and strong support and appreciation for NoTime's action. First off, admins are completely empowered by the community to block (including the implementation of indefs) whenever they think it is in the best interests of the project--so long as the block is undertaken purely for those good faith reasons. It makes no sense to insist that if TNT had come across this behaviour out "in the wild" of the project generally, he could have implemented this block, but because a process had begun here, the block was somehow harmful to the blocked party or the project's interests. That would be pro-forma/procedural silliness and has never been a standard adopted by the community (explicitly or implicitly) when admins come across disruptive behaviour in this space (or at any other noticeboard/community space). If anything, the fact TNT took action based on misconduct raised here (and noted the block here) gives additional protection to the blocked party, insofar as the reasons for the block itself will come under more scrutiny--and thus any particularly kneejerk or unjustified block would be more likely to be called out.
Nor is this a particularly borderline case. TNT's block was Joe's fifth this year alone, four of which were for incivility. And just weeks back from the last one, Joe has already ramped themselves up to "Fuck off" levels of caustic/disruptive behaviour. Clearly this user is not hearing the community's concerns, and may indeed just not have the temperament at present to participate in a project of this sort. And for those saying "Well, but a block like this is, which doesn't give the party a chance to defend themselves, will only make them angrier," I have a response of but one word: "So?" This user's anger (or more specifically, their apparent inability to control it) is exactly the issue here and holding other parties responsible for it in this context makes zero sense. Furthermore, it's not as if this user has not had an opportunity to engage with the community over these matters and been given an opportunity to understand and assimilate community expectations with regard to civility; they have been to ANI recently and each of the occasions on which they have received a lesser block, it has been received from a different admin, who would have explained the reasons for the block. How many different ways does the community have to try to explain the baseline conduct standards of this project before we view a disruptive user's inability to internalize those rules as a problem with the editor themselves?
Lastly, as has been noted above, an indef block is not per se a permanent one. If this editor can take time away from the project, analyze what went wrong here and come back to us with a genuine effort to identify and address those concerns, they will almost certainly be allowed to resume editing. They may be angry now, but anger will fade with time and hopefully allow them that kind of introspection. Or it won't, and they will continue to see everyone but themselves as the problem--in which case they shouldn't be on the project anyway. Regardless, I think that There'sNoTime did not just make a reasonable call here--they made the obvious one. The community of contributors here at ANI is often very vocal about the difficulty of getting admins to act on clear issues with alacrity, which makes the complaints in this case all the more peculiar, but regardless, I think TNT's action was 100% appropriate, justified, and in the best interests of the project. Snowlet's rap 01:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow, that's a lot of words, but I don't agree that this was "obvious". Drmies (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough--you have an admin's perspective on this--but, if these facts are insufficient, it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where it would be much more fair for an admin to exercise their authority to institute a long-term block. In this situation we have a user who has been blocked five times in eight and half months, four of those resulting from the same issue. What would be the threshhold at which you think an indef for blatantly uncivil behaviour is warranted? Or do you think admins should not have recourse to indefs in cases of incivility? If so, that's another conversation and I strike no firm position on that--aside from generally worrying that WP:C has, in recent years, not been treated with the seriousness it deserves as a WP:PILLAR policy (and in my opinion maybe our most important in terms of making a collaborative endeavour work). Perhaps that's a conversation worth having, but insofar as admins are right now, under every relevant policy and community expectation, allowed the discretion of indefs in cases of recurrent problems, it's hard for me to imagine what more TNT would be expected to wait for in this instance. Snowlet's rap 03:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I changed the original filer's template from Template:vandal to Template:user. That is a courtesy we can afford an "angry prick". For the record, there are better ways to handle this than a block, let alone an indefinite block. Sure, there are editors who have been begging for an indefinite block, and some of those editors show up regularly on these boards. Joefromrandomb is not one of those. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I propose WP:BOOMERANG block of the OP. (I've been quite critical of calls for BOOMERANG and those who love to apply it, as it has migrated from its original -- that a complainer is guilty of the same complaint they are registering, in the same instance. In this case I think the application is perfect, since admin Toddst1's complaint of WP:BATTLE clearly applies to Toddst1, an admin known for holding grudges and going after others based on incivility concerns, which is a lark, since there are more pernicious ways of metering out incivility, than saying a bad word in a blunt reply on user Talk, such as what Toddst1 has mastered: following around his pet targets, inciting them to respond, then trying to reap maximum damage, all the while never saying a bad word himself in nearly his entire editing history, just to be sure no one can put an objective finger on his own incivility. There is probably a Mother Goose fable about this, basically, wolf in sheep's clothing story. Toddst1 is a rogue admin, this proves to me no change after his dodge from being de-sysopped.) ¶ Admin TNT did a block from the hip, a surfacy "incivility block" to the max, which is supposed to be reserved for users doing egregious damage. After Toddst1 gave one of those to me, he further attempted to bury me alive, by removing my Talk page access. (TNT, how much background on these two respective users did you do? None? Thought so.) And about telling someone to "fuck off" their own Talk page, if you think that is uncivil, then please go tell admin Drmies, who is now also arbcom, as he several times told me that on his Talk page. (Hypocrisy much?) ¶ User Ad Orientem, go soak your head, trying to use an editor's block history against them. (Classic technique to bias others according to your wishes. Let's see, Toddst1 indef-blocked me, is that a strike against me, or against Toddst1?) --IHTS (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, "hypocrisy much" says the editor who only shows up when there's an opportunity for digging up old grudges. For the record, Toddst1 is, on the whole, always, a fine, fine admin, and never finer than when he blocked you. Did I tell you to fuck off? Maybe so--on my own talk page, where you used to come trolling, back in the good old days.
We can have a discussion here about the value of the block, the value of the warning that led to the block, the speed with which the block was issues, the length of the block, the value of the editor relative to the disruption they cause (if any--some minor edit warring and a "fuck off" or two on their own talk), but for none of those things we need you. Stick to chess--you were doing fine there! Drmies (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, I'm here to object to abuse against Joe. (WP is an abuse pit. For years before I ever started as editor.) Yeah, thx for reminding (your past assessment of Toddst1 as "a fine admin"). You told me at least 3 times to "fuck off". (And I have no problem with that. I wasn't trolling you, you just couldn't tolerate truthful flak back, so the easiest technique to defeat that is what you did: "Fuck off my talk page." Cheap, but doesn't bother me. The hypocrisy lies in attempting to apply that uncivil comment against users versus against admins. Ditto the lack of recognition there are more pernicious ways to be uncivil than blunt responses containing a bad word.) If Toddst1 isn't being called out in this thread, then you really do need me, sorry if you don't like to hear that. (And you don't, because you're basically telling me to "fuck off" again, but like Toddst1, have mastered the ability to comment w/o incorporating choice words.) --IHTS (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies has also called Toddst1 out in this thread, as have several other users. It seems you are too busy casting aspersions to get a good bearing on what is happening in this thread. Lepricavark (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
False equivalence; I am comfortable assuming that Drmies did not make those comments as part of an extended pattern of incivility that had already seen them censured by the community repeatedly throughout the year. Despite my high regard for them as an admin and member of the community in general, I actually do not approve of Drmies telling another user to "fuck off" under any circumstances. I think it is a clear, brightline violation of WP:C for any user and particularly problematic for an admin. But not all violation of policy (even the same policy) are alike in scope and context, and your analogy does not hold up here. This discussion is not about Drmies, it's about Joe, and Joe has already been the beneficiary of attention from the community this year telling them that they need to bring down the heat in their interactions with others. If they didn't take those warnings to heart in that context, then a) there's no reason for the community to assume the situation is going to get better on its own and b) Joe has no one to blame but themselves, at the end of the day. Snowlet's rap 04:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I recalled a prior history between IHTS and Toddst1, one that didn't necessarily reflect well on the latter. In the admin's defense, both Joe and IHTS are known for uncollegial behavior, but that doesn't mean that Toddst1's behavior was optimal in any way. It is unfortunate, IHTS, that you chose to jump in here with a petulant rant, and telling another editor to "go soak your head" is not appropriate behavior. IHTS, this is not an elementary school playground. Lepricavark (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order: Toddst1 is not an admin, though he used to be, long time ago now. The Arbcom of that time didn't share your good opinion of his admin actions, Drmies. Bishonen | talk 03:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Very specifically, he took a self-enforced one-year hiatus to escape an ongoing ANI and prob. an Arbcom case which was imminent and returned to prolific contributions after and only after he was desyssoped for in-activity.But IMHO, that is immaterial to the current case.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, come again? What editor, page, or line of reasoning led you to the conclusion that looking at an editor's block log/previous history with the project was an exercise in bias, when the community has to consider how to deal with disruptive behaviou?. That is A) an incredibly curious conclusion and B) not a standard that has ever been endorsed by this community when it comes to grappling with longterm behaviour (logically and unsurprisingly enough). "Bias" would imply that someone was bringing in factors which obsfucate the matter under discussion and have no direct bearing on the matter. When considering how much WP:ROPE the community should/can afford to expend to an editor, the number of times they have been blocked (especially over a relatively short period of time and for the same issues) is clearly relevant--and evaluating past behaviour in general is outright necessary. Snowlet's rap 03:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Joefromrandb has been blocked 10 times in less than 5 years, for his continued incivility and continued battleground conduct. And yet, his behavior continues to worsen rather than improving. His hostility and disruptiveness – nearly five years of ever-increasing hostility, warring, incivility, vulgarity, disruption, trolling, vandalism, and a blatant unconcern and disregard for behavioral norms or Wikipedia guidelines/policies, and an apparent attitude that he can do what he likes without consequence – have in my opinion crossed into net negative, and he has reached the point of a WP:CIR block for his inability to work collaboratively with others. I therefore support the indef block with WP:STANDARDOFFER. Either WP:CIVIL is a policy we uphold, or it isn't. Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--While the block was a bit too rapid, and the complainant's behaviour looked provocative to an extent, on an evaluation of his battle-ground uncivil behaviour with those with whom he dis-agreed, I strongly support the indef.This may be well-considered to be a cumulative result of his long-term behaviour rather than a reflection on this part. incident.Also echo Snow and GRing.Obviously, if John posts an un-block req. and is willing to change his manner(s), there's no need for the block to continue.which seems snow-impossible, given his latest edits.It's seriously problematic when certain editors think content-creation etc. excuses you from 3RR etc. and the subject of the disc. begins to think that his version of policies is the one that shall be abided by.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 05:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blocking before discussion had even got underway was a poor decision. Per Bish: "If we can spend weeks debating the indefinite block of the egregious POV-pusher Hidden Tempo, and end by appointing a fucking panel of editors to close that discussion, I think we can weigh the fate of an actual long-time useful content contributor for more than a few minutes". The behaviour of the complainant was certainly provocative. "Fuck off" is not a personal attack. I agree with Drmies that there are better ways to handle this than a block, let alone an indefinite one. As, I think, Carrite has been known to say - this is a shop-floor, not a vicar's tea party. When improving the encyclopedia becomes secondary to "ooh, he said a rude word" then it is the encyclopedia that suffers. Oh, and who's John? --Begoon 06:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Begoon, I'm not sure why people keep asserting "'Fuck off' is not a WP:personal attack", because I have not seen so much as a single person make the assertion that is is. Nor is anyone saying that the behaviour in question was inappropriate because it involved a "rude word". Both of those strike me as blatant straw man arguments, conscious or otherwise. This isn't about sensitivity to vulgarity, when it comes to someone using the phrase "fuck off"; surely you recognize that the phrase, used in the context of a personal dispute, has meaning beyond mere vulgarity. I suspect most of the editors in this community couldn't give a fig if someone went around saying "Fucking brilliant work on the vandalism task force, friend. You're a great contributor and if anyone says differently, I don't give a fuck." Nobody is complaining about that sort of thing. But when someone tells another editor to fuck off as their means of dispute resolution, then yes that's clearly a brightline violation of WP:C, and yes it's a problem, regardless of how comfortable we might be with the word itself. And when this is done by a user who has already been blocked numerous times recently for incivility, it becomes particularly worth comment. One doesn't have to be a prude/particularly sensitive to vulgarity in order to find this particular usage in this particular context offensive and disruptive. Snowlet's rap 07:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Snow Rise (inclusion of which means I can now continue with impunity, because I've curtsied to the civility gods, yes?), I don't 'recognize' that the use of that phrase, under provocation, merits any kind of a block, no. I'm much more concerned about faux-civility tactics used by POV pushers and as a technique to "win" an argument or conflict than I am by this particular usage. --Begoon 07:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we will just have to agree to disagree. Your use of the term "faux civility" suggests we have fundamentally different notions about what the word civility itself means. Civility is not (at least insofar as we generally use it on this project) a state of mind so much as a standard of conduct. And it's not about being affirmatively nice, it's about avoiding certain blatantly disruptive behaviours. You can be civil towards someone at this standard even if you don't agree with them, like them, or are quite certain they are being a total idiot. And without going through any particular extra effort to be nice, for that matter. So "faux" doesn't even come into the analysis for me. And whatever we feel, WP:C is one of the WP:5P. No, it doesn't (and is not meant to) solve all problems--your POV pusher, for example, or any manner of WP:disruptive user man we might use as a boogey-man to excuse being uncivil with others--but it surely addresses one particularly significant problem. Because we have policies to deal with those other issues, but those can only be applied if we first surmount the much lower standard of WP:C--or nothing else can ever get done. That's why this community enshrined that value as one of its foundational policies. If someone cannot negotiate such a low bar as not getting blocked four times in 8.5 months for civility violations (which is actually pretty hard to do even once), that's a problem for this community, plain and simple. Snowlet's rap 09:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we can agree to disagree on this. I am personally terrified by the number of times I see tenuous "civility concerns" inappropriately used, often as an attempted cudgel to unbalance or derail a discussion. That's much more of a concern to me than an editor, under provocation, telling someone to "fuck off" from their own talk page. (Oh, and my alleged "blatant straw-men" have asked me to put forward the NPA template on Joe's page as evidence against their 'strawness'... I told them to fuck off, obviously, but they were adamant...). --Begoon 09:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Snow Rise, I was the first to point out that "fuck off" is not a personal attack because Toddst1, not TNT, had indirectly (and provocatively) said it was, by posting a "No personal attacks" template on Joe because Joe had said "fuck off" to Bkonrad. Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I thought I was. For "With all due respect", see WP:Wikispeak#R"respect, n., Often used as in with respect, or with all due respect, euphemisms for I think you're talking bollocks". Bishonen | talk 09:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC). [reply]
I'm not seeing where I implied that you didn't say that, Bish. As for "with respect", you're free to cite any essay you like as justification for not WP:AGFing that I mean it sincerely, or you can take me at my word that I do. Snowlet's rap 09:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're not seeing that, really? Snow Rise, I'll risk sounding like Mr Bennet in Pride and Prejudice when Mary had gone on playing the piano for too long ("Child, you have delighted us long enough"), and ask if you wouldn't you agree you have contributed enough bytes to this discussion now? Bishonen | talk 09:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
First off, what a patronizing way to frame a sentiment that, at it's core, is already patronizing. Second, I didn't invite you to engage my comment, which was not directed at you. If you choose to do so (and especially if you do so for the purpose of suggesting I am being insincere), you can't take then take umbrage/try to highroad me with implications of being to single-minded if I respond. Snowlet's rap 10:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can comment to challenge an apparent error without your invitation, eg "I'm not sure why people keep asserting "'Fuck off' is not a WP:personal attack", because I have not seen so much as a single person make the assertion that is is" (my emphasis) when the OP did exactly that by posting an NPA warning. I was going to point out the same thing myself, but I got an edit conflict with Bish. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, Bish, "with respect" means "with respect". I use it occasionally, and never as cowardly cover-my-ass code for "I think you're talking bollocks". My experience with Snow Rise strongly suggests that they never use it like that, either, and there is nothing here to suggest otherwise. Pretty clear AGF failure there, Bish. It appears Bish and Boing have a point as to NPA, Snow, and I AGF that you just missed that. I'll resist the temptation to go all meta on these larger issues, but I'll say that this dialogue has been (mostly) a refreshing if brief change from the standard fare on this page. ―Mandruss☎ 11:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose that block. I slept through most of this, but not well. If you talk about civility, then please have the civility to talk before you block. I oppose this block, performed without talking to the person, and to the community. I think we heard enough long speeches, so just one more: every editor is a human being. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef block - On my tenth Wiki-birthday I am going to stand once again for the blocking of long-term abusers. This, right now, is the point where we have to say enough is enough to those with multiple blocks who show clear intent to continue their disruptive statements. In the decade I've been here the editing environment has grown increasingly toxic, so much so that recently I usually find I have better things to do with my time. We are discouraging new editors by allowing bullies and name-callers to dominate this project. I'm sick of excuses, and enablers. I salute the OP and the block as a first step in the right direction. Jusdafax 08:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support block TNT hits the nail on the head here with the phrase "continued blatant incivility" which pretty much describes Joefromrandb's behaviour. Like it or not, last time I checked WP:CIVIL was still a policy, and unless you want to change that then TNT's block was absolutely correct, and I applaud him for daring to actually enforce CIVIL, which it seems many admins have just given up on- and judging by this thread, you can certainly see why. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support block. Enough is enough. MPS1992 (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block - really, "fuck off" is not a personal attack. And jumping to an immediate indef after less than an hour discussion is concerning. Remember - encyclopedia. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Collaboration doesn't mean everyone behaves exactly alike - it means that sometimes you're going to run into people with different standards of collaboration than yourself. Keep in mind the goal of the project and it becomes a lot easier to say "gee... is this really worth the effort I've expended on it" - which, quite frankly, the source of this dispute shows clearly. The encyclopedia would all be better off if editors worried less about cuss words and more about accurate sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: First of all, WP:CIV exists. Second, are you aware of their exhaustive block log containing blocks that were placed for this exact same tendentious behavior? Boiling this down to just one usage of "fuck off" displays shortsightedness. Nihlus 12:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weirdly enough, yes, I'm quite aware that WP:CIV exists. Of course, that's because I've watched it be used over and over as a hammer to get rid of opponents over the years I've been on this project. Heck, I even pointed it out in my RfA, and said then that I wasn't a big fan of its enforcement. Personally, I think keeping in mind the whole goal of the project doesn't display short-sightedness... it displays the correct attitude. Your milage/kilometerage may vary. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't speak to the long list of previous blocks. And unless I am misreading something, I find it odd that you would oppose something merely because you dislike the policy that others have used to bolster their arguments. I mean, like it or not, it is one of the five pillars, so I hesitate to say your attitude is the "correct" attitude. Nihlus 12:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nihlus, I really don't want to go all "listen to your elders", but in this case please listen to your elders. Ealdgyth is an editor whose quality and experience, not to mention common sense, is pretty much unmatched; if she says "fuck off" is not a personal attack, that should be taken seriously, not responded to by asking if she knows of our civility rules--she does. I wouldn't say it in the way she said, but I would say, and I have, that "fuck off" isn't really blockable (certainly not on one's own talk page), and I say that from experience and from conviction, though I suppose this case might prove me wrong. What youngsters (yes) frequently fail to appreciate is that civility is difficult to enforce, for a couple of basic reasons, one of which is that one person's incivility is not another's, and another is, given that there is a broad range of levels of incivility, it is not easy to enforce that. So it's much less about correctness and the application of policy then it is about other things, and it is clear that Ealdgyth and I are not in agreement (I think Black Kite is with us) with the application that prevailed here. Finally, I think that attempting to summarize Ealdgyth's conciseness as shortsightedness is not fair to her, and worse, you are missing out on what could be a good learning opportunity. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: That's a rather needlessly patronizing comment. I never said nor implied that saying "fuck off" was a personal attack; I said it was uncivil, which it was and still is. And I never asked her if she knew the civility rules; I merely stated they existed in response to the implied reasoning that nothing was wrong with saying "fuck off". And while I can respect the notion that civility is hard to enforce in certain situations, the line needs to be drawn somewhere, especilly for habitually uncivil users. And implying that the "fuck off" was the only reason for the block is a display of shortsightedness as it fails to address the other multitude of arguments presented by others; this is why I asked her to address the nine previous blocks, which she has yet to do. Nihlus 04:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nihlus, if u could take a break from digging your own grave, w/ you please relocate your generalized "Support block" rant out of the discussion between There'sNoTime & me, where it doesn't belong, to the !voting section where it belongs? Thx. --IHTS (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: >"elders". And Nihlus has a point: "Fuck off" may not be a personal attack, but it's mildly rude and offputting at best, and not conducive to a collegial editing environment. Wouldn't it be much simpler if, instead of replying "fuck off" and getting people's feathers all ruffled, people would turn the other cheek, so to speak, and just ignore or remove comments that tempt them to make that response? Personally, when I get that rising feeling to say unpleasant things, I find it's best to take a step back from the wiki and do something else for a couple hours. Think how much drama could be avoided if everyone did that. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 08:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I doubt TNT feels the need for validation, but since we're doing this, clearly I Oppose this block, both in duration (as the blocking admin now acknowledges) and indeed in its neccesity, due to the previous provocation. Unless of course TNT decides to block Toddst1 for unfounded accusations of personal attacks which are of course personal attacks :) — fortunavelut luna 12:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Support blockin its current, 3–month form. My concerns about the speed of the block, and the behavior of the OP, notwithstanding, Joe's incivility has reached a point where it needs to be addressed strongly. An indef block is still a step or two away, but a three–month enforced Wikibreak is nothing to trifle with and will hopefully help Joe to see the need to adjust his behavior once his block expires. Lepricavark (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support increasing back to indef Joe's latest posts, such as these [49], [50], show that he still doesn't get it and likely never will. His strawman that he is being asked to "prostrate himself before you and beg to be forgiven" is beyond ridiculous. He has tried to turn himself into the victim because he is being asked to abide by our civility pillar as an unblocking condition. He has made his bed, and now he is determined to lie in it. Lepricavark (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing for me to gain in trying to talk sensibly to such an angry person. Have a nice day. Lepricavark(talk) 03:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Insulting prick. --IHTS (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...have mastered the ability to comment w/o incorporating choice words. Isn't that somewhat ironic? Blackmane (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. (I'm not admin or an admin wannabe, whose conducts s/b "at a higher standard". p.s. You've misused word "ironic"; the word you were looking for was "inconsistent". p.p.s. Can we gunk this up w/ further baiting? Does "whispering" in small font make it better? --IHTS (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef block until Joe can show that he can WP:GETTHEPOINT. Lepricavark's diffs provide ample proof that this will not stop, so the community should wash its hands of this user and stop wasting its time. Nihlus 15:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support admin discretion - If someone is claiming that There'sNoTime has acted outside admin discretion, I can't see it; please respond here. If someone is claiming a violation of WP:BLOCK, I can't see it; please respond here. If someone is claiming that There'sNoTime has violated some other relevant policy, I can't see it; please respond here. If someone feels that There'sNoTime should be relieved of the mop, this is not the venue. If someone feels that admins have too much discretion in general, this is not the venue. The rest is noise. Those non-admins who feel they know enough to haul an admin over the coals over a within-policy action should be required to spend 3 months as an admin (and actually do controversial things with the mop during that time.) ―Mandruss☎ 16:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Second Mandruss' pointBlackmane (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moving forwards
As I've mentioned in this thread, I blocked quickly. I can see now that waiting for additional comments on the matter is helpful, though currently I'm not swayed to a position of thinking I was mistaken in placing an indef block. I'll welcome a discussion into my block if the community wishes to go that direction, but the point of this thread was wholly incivility by Joefromrandb. So, for the sake of trying to "get things done", what would the community like to happen now in regards to the original report? -- There'sNoTime(to explain) 07:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I disagree with any mention of standing offer here. Joefromrandb is not a vandal nor sockpuppet, nor was this a community-based indefinite block. I think moving forward we should discuss 1) if the block was needed 2) the appropriate length of the block 3) what the editor needs to do. Earlier this year Floquenbeam has proposed to Joefromrandb to restrict themselves to 1RR, and I think it's time to turn that into community enforcement. Alex ShihTalk 07:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I too disagree with a standard offer for the same reasons, as mentioned on my talk page, I'd unblock immediately if Joefromrandb put their hands up and committed to continue working here without these little outbursts -- There'sNoTime(to explain) 08:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, having looked at this, and my actions (and having taken on-board the comments, both supporting and opposing) I'm going to undo my indefinite block and replace it with a three month block (the next highest duration in TW after the previous 1 month block). I'm doing this because my initial block was too quick, as nearly everyone above has pointed out, but I am not entirely removing it as I still stand by a block being a reasonable result even now. I appreciate there are some who support the indef block, and would like to note that your support was noted in making this decision. I believe a discussion as to how we deal with this should be had, but I will recuse myself from that. If continued discussion here finds that any block was not required, an uninvolved administrator may remove it without notifying me. Thanks -- There'sNoTime(to explain) 08:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incomprehensible. (The complaints of "too quick" were re blocking at all, not re length of block. Your logic is that because you agree re "too quick", you're retaining the block but adjusting duration?! After complaints of "too quick" came in this is how you responded: "I don't see how a discussion would affect the outcome. I'm happy to be proven wrong and will of course make way for any consensus that forms." If you believe a "too quick" consensus has formed, that means any block was premature. You also responded: "I thank you all for your opinions, but I stand firmly by my block. Continued blatant incivility is causing this project to get more and more toxic." which clearly shows an over-zealous civility enforcement mentality that has been discussed to incredible lengths in historical ANIs & arbcom cases. Really, are you even aware?) --IHTS (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly can't make everyone happy. I'd rather be known for civility enforcement than incivility enabling. Now, I'm gonna go back to improving some medical articles, perhaps we could all find something more constructive to do? -- There'sNoTime(to explain) 10:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support this block fully. Before today, this user had been blocked 9 times for tendentious editing and incivility. He has a multi-year history of telling others to fuck off and making belittling comments such as "Does that make you feel better?" in response to any an all blocking admins (or calling it pussy shit). The responses above about how this block was inappropriate are baffling. Users should not be permitted to be hostile towards other editors in any situation, let alone after being given multiple opportunities to change their behaviors, and other users shouldn't be asked to deal with it. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:EQ, and WP:CIVIL all come into play. Nihlus 11:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How patronizing: "perhaps we could all find something more constructive to do?". Your RfA had 13 support !votes showing at least some "concern/pause/hesitation" re promoting someone w/ such shortage of content experience. Your statement: "It's clear from my article contributions that I do not find content creation as captivating as others do, but instead that I wish to volunteer my time and energy into areas where I have both skill and an interest." I guess that included patrolling ANI as civility cop? No mention of that at RfA. Your "I believe an understanding of content related policies and being able to empathise with content creators is important - I don't believe this experience can be gained solely from creating content, but can be gleamed also from interacting with both articles and content creators themselves." elicited in a support !vote: "I would just caution them that the only real way to understand the content creation side of WP is to actually do it." Anything learned here? Four support !voters dismissed the relevance of content creation experience, typically: "The myopic focus of some with content creation at RFA doesn't sway me. Yes, an admim must be able to understand the hurdles dedicated content creators go through, but where would we be without admins who [...]". I guess right here, dealing w/ the fallout? --IHTS (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IHTS, I seem to recall you complaining in the past about how ANI is a cesspool. Guess what, it's editors like yourself who make it one. You've added not one iota of value to this discussion, and your further attempts at derailment by bringing up TNT's RfA demonstrate that you are incapable of contributing here in a productive manner. You have the rare talent for arguing with people whether they agree or disagree with you, and you are fortunate that your IDHT behavior hasn't yet earned you the same fate as Joefromrandb. Before you lash out at me for making these remarks, consider that I am employing your own strategy of personally discrediting one's opponents. The difference is that, unlike you, I actually have something to work with. Lepricavark (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Badger much? Here or RfA. Still can't get over the criticisms I left @ your Talk years ago, huh? Go away AutomaticStrikeOut. --IHTS (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More strawmen. You're not very good at arguing against what other people are actually saying. Lepricavark (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your "I'd rather be known for civility enforcement than incivility enabling." does not compute. (If I don't volunteer to leave my state to fight a forest fire in California, am I "enabling" the fire?) --IHTS (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I note that whilst there has been much commentary on the fact that this is Jfrnb's nth block. Indeed, much reiterated commentary- in case we haven't got the message, perhaps. On a side note- per Godwin's Law I won't mention who (IIRC) originally said it- but there is a sense here that "If you say something often enough... people will believe it." Yes the numbers are true, the conclusions drawn, less so. He went block-free between 2013 to February just gone; four years. Has anybody actually ever enquired- attempted to find out- what if anything happened in February, that all of a sudden, after four years, he went to Defcon1 and has hardly come back from it since? WP =/= THERAPY, of course, and we are not psychologists- but surely we have a duty to protect the encyclopaedia? And by that I mean attempt at least basic editor retention. — fortunavelut luna 12:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: The concern with editor retention should be what keeping someone who displays such uncivil behavior does to others, not the other way around. We shouldn't strive to keep people around whose behavior contravenes multiple policies. Nihlus 12:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's certainly possible that we have different operating philosophies; mine is more along the lines that their isn't a "concern with editor retention"; there are "concerns with editor retention." That there are shades of grey, degrees of culpability and responsbility, blame isn't binary, most things go two ways, and that a community ==/== consistency. But that's why we do this, surely. — fortunavelut luna 12:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Eh. I was OK with the indef but downgrading this to a 3 month seems reasonable. That said, I am getting tired of seeing editors get a pass on persistent gross abuse of CIVIL, often with the excuse that they are productive editors. On which note I'd like to thank There'sNoTime for their very calm and even tempered response to this discussion. And in closing I would caution Joefromrandb that they had best work on their communications skills. If their recent pattern of behavior continues after coming off block I would support an indefinite block, w/o further recourse to ANI. Now unless there is something that has not been said about this issue I am going to move along. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take Ad Orientem's "Eh" and expand it to what young people call "Meh". I'm not really happy about expanding a 1 month block to a 3 month block on the basis of a couple of comments on the editor's own talk page (for which we have far more latitude), at least one of which was prompted by poking from the OP of this thread, who I'm sure will be very satisfied with their work in this situation. Some sort of a block was needed (more for the 3RR than the "incivility"), but I'm not sure that's best served by admins throwing out knee-jerk random blocks in the middle of an ANI discussion as seems to have happened in this case. "Meh", indeed. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth at this point, when I see an editor coming off a one-month block edit-warring against the MOS and citing irrelevant guidelines (as in [51][52][53][54][55]); being their fourth (maybe fifth, depending whether you count the extension in August) block this year for similar situations; making personal attacks in edit summaries (as in the '961 diff above); and when attempts to discuss the content in the dispute are met with gross incivility, I think I'd be at least considering indef. Something needs to change and clearly limited-duration blocks are not doing the job. The number of editors above who seek to excuse gross incivility is depressing. Responding to a civil attempt to discuss a dispute by telling someone to "fuck off" is never civil in any situation. Some above compare Wikipedia to a shop floor (or as sometimes happens to a pub common room), as thought "fuck off" was a perfectly civil article of interaction in those places. Of course it isn't; those are just places where incivility is commonly tolerated. Wikipedia is not such a place; that it is not such a place is not my opinion, it's one of the five pillars. And for what it's worth, of my two local pubs, in one you'd be asked to leave and the other you'd likely start a fight, which is the point of the pillar, really; a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger - not what we're trying to achieve. GoldenRing (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@There'sNoTime: Regardless of whether there is justification for a block of a productive editor, you didn't take the time to weigh factors like his block log against others like the provocation he received and the blatant inaccuracy of the original posting. An ANI discussion really should be allowed to explore these factors in any established editor's case, and we don't need admins displaying an itchy trigger-finger on the block button so soon after a debate has started. You should consider your position. --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
^^ What he said. There seem to be some vociferous people here with axes to grind (what's new?) but one thing is certain: TNT acted inappropriately and even their change of heart is rule-bound beyond sensibility. Admins need to use discretion, not just rules. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly reinserts without consensus what appears to be promotion of a non-notable Biblical translation (which has no article), without discussing per BRD/CONSENSUS. A few diffs: (same article: [56], [57], [58], [59]), (another article: [60], [61], [62]), (other articles: [63], [64]). My explanation on the editors's talk page: [65]. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) —PaleoNeonate – 02:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it appears that the problem here is that BigBrownOcelot is making controversial edits and not engaging with other editors. S/he has made no edits to talk pages in the last year and doesn't tend to use edit summaries so I can understand the frustration. I am going to block BigBrownOcelot -- not punitively, but simply to get their attention and ask them to start cooperating with other users. I will lift the block immediately upon their agreement to start collaborating and seeking consensus. We can see where it goes from there.
Thanks PaleoNeonate for the report and for your patience in dealing with a frustrating situation. ATraintalk 10:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, let's indeed hope that this will begin a dialogue. —PaleoNeonate – 10:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I blocked the user in question, got their attention, unblocked them, and they have been communicative and not editing disruptively since then. I think this one is done and dusted, but I'll leave it to an uninvolved admin to review and archive. ATraintalk 16:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated closure of RfC by involved editor + alteration of others' talk page comments
I was summoned to a request for comment by the bot a few days ago, to which I started contributing. As far as I can remember, I had no interaction with the page or the involved editors before that. Before taking part in the RfC, I looked up the page a bit and saw that this was obviously part of a content dispute between Arianewiki1 and Attic Salt (whom I shall both notify of this thread, though only the former is my reason for posting here), but I decided to ignore it.
At my second reply, I kind-of edit-conflicted with Arianewiki1, who had stricken all of Attic Salt's recent posts based on the fact that Attic Salt had put the "retired" banner on their userpage. I un-stroke the RfC part (missed the rest and was too lazy for a second edit) with the comment You do not get to close an RfC early just because the initiator has left, especially when you are involved in that RfC. I also templated Arianewiki1's talk page with {{uw-tpv1}}, which was probably a mistake from my part, both WP:DTTR-wise and because the template was not exactly putting the finger on the problem, but I believed it was clear enough.
Arianewiki1 eventually closed the RfC. Now: if some uninvolved editor had closed the RfC as malformed after it opened, I would have found it reasonable though a bit heavy-handed, because the RfC was poorly formulated (and I said as much). Still, there are a ton of problems with that. First of all they were obviously heavily involved. Second, even accepting the closure rationale (which as written looks completely bollocks to me - that RfC was poorly formulated, but it was a valid form of dispute resolution), they could have closed the RfC immediately after it popped; I suspect they did not realize the RfC was poorly formulated until reading RedRose64's comment (or mine), and at that point jumped on the apparent opportunity. Third, reading use dispute resolution forums such as an WP:ANI (emphasis added) sends chills down my spine.
I believe Arianewiki1 needs at the very least a strongly worded explanation about WP:INVOLVED (as it applies to editors closing RfCs) and WP:TPG. It is not their first time at ANI and the "come at me bro" edit summary ANI this if you wish do not give me much confidence they have the most collaborative intentions or the steepest learning curve, but that is only my gut feeling.
The whole thing also showed Arianewiki1's behavior toward Attic Salt to be (let's say) less than optimal: unsubstantiated sockpuppetry aspersion, bad faith assumption (if an RfC is not an attempt to reach consensus, I don't know what is), reverting on Attic Salt's userpage. That looks equally unacceptable to me, but it may be partially excusable due to a long history of sparring between the two (I have not checked whether this is indeed the case). TigraanClick here to contact me 10:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both editors notified. I might monitor this, but I might not; please ping me if my input is needed (though I doubt it will be, since I have no more familiarity with the dispute than what I linked to here). TigraanClick here to contact me 10:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned by some of Arianewiki1's behavior, but there's probably nothing for administrators to do here unless the situation escalates further. The underlying content dispute at Talk:Plasma (physics) is ... quite confusing; I'm not completely sure what changes are being advocated after reading the page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tigraan: there cannot be a long history of conflict between these two, because Attic Salt is a new editor. To me the WP:BITE problem here is the most severe (not that the 3RR violation or the removal of other editors' comments would have been ok either). Arianewiki1 seems to have backed off, so I am unconvinced that there is any admin attention needed with the possible exception of the bright-line 3RR vio, which as you noted is already open at the appropriate forum. VQuakr (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Power~enwiki:@Tigraan:@VQuakr:The use of this ANI is looking more and more like character assassination and ganging up / gaming a User rather than solving the actual problem. I do suggest that you present the facts and not the unfounded insinuations. e.g. Saying "...not that the 3RR violation..." What 3RR violation? The statement is false, because the current ANI has not been proven. You should be stating "possible 3RR violation" or in saying "Arianewiki1 seems to have backed off" implies that I guilty of something, but all I've been doing is being bombarded on multiple fronts defending myself and my right or wrong actions. Worst is saying "I am unconvinced that there is any admin attention needed with the possible exception of the bright-line 3RR vio, which as you noted is already open at the appropriate forum.", which is seemingly an attempt to influence other who read to your own presented ANI.
I was 100% right to suspect a sock, and I did openly explain why. The history of Plasma (physics) and Plasma cosmology have been fraught with socks and those that wish to promote alternative theory agendas. Saying "...but it may be partially excusable due to a long history of sparring between the two (I have not checked whether this is indeed the case)" is merely innuendo not fact. If the issue that WP:BITE "is the most severe", both of you here haven't presented an adequate case. Anyone can instigate sock investigations, especially when the evidence sees an IP and User begin to be seemingly connected, working in unison or act oddly. Perhaps the User could have been unaware that socking was wrong. (All I was after was to see if it were the case.) If so, you can steer then in the right direction. The action was not personal. Even now, the IP has reverted edits on the disputed Plasma (physics), again wrongly accusing me of WP:OWN.[67] I've attempted to solve it with compromise stated here.[Talk:Plasma (physics)#Reorganised text]
Plainly VQuakr behaviour to this, especially the unnecessary incivility, is not unacceptable. (It has greatly reduced the sting of their own case.)
I have made a number of mistakes with this situation and have learned from them. If you so desperately want me to be sanctioned, then start presenting evidence of actual egregious intent where I have not shown any remorse or contrition.
Note: I replied to this ANI yesterday, but it has seeming disappeared. I am currently having problems with the visual editor for some reason, so forgive the sometimes apparent loss of my train of thought. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Arianewiki1: despite my not having any access to information you didn't, I pointed out the spurious nature of your sockpuppetry investigation request at [68]. You seem to have missed the part in my post above where I said I did not think sanctions against you are warranted (though I would support an indef ban against you if you ever repeated the WP:BITE violations, and your deflection regarding your indefensible attacks on a newbie remains concerning). Prioritize brevity. VQuakr (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Power~enwiki:This response [69], then deleted [70] had the uncivil reply "Please go read WP:BITE while you f**k off." Yet it is now perfectly fine to lecture me on what sanctions should or should not be imposed, and cast ever widening dispersions and innuendo. Your replies are now bordering on both WP:Harassment and WP:Hounding, and I am getting more distressed (three days now) with the fact of falling into some simple technical mistake, so that I will be sanctioned. Doing this kind of thing within an WP:ANI is inexplicable. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to ping power~enwiki or myself in the previous post? It seems like a reply to me. Can you clarify? VQuakr (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Arianewiki1: I opened this thread after virtually no interaction with you. Even if you think VQuakr is out to get you (which, to the best of my knowledge, they are not), please at least imagine the possibility that you did something seriously wrong, not just a "simple technical mistake". I have nothing against you in particular, I am not a litigious editor who brings anyone crossing my path at ANI, I am not on a mission to support the older editors against the newer. I know that opening an ANI thread about you is going to stress you, I know it is going to lose a lot of time from you, me and other editors, and I know it will not solve the underlying content issue; so unless I am mad or sadistic, I must have a not-so-bad reason to do that.
If you cannot see why your actions were wrong, and more wrong than a "simple technical mistake", ask. Ideally you would have asked as soon as you saw me revert you on the talk page, rather than after being dragged at ANI; but better late than never.
For starters: none should close a debate in which they took part. None should edit others' talk page comments, unless specifically allowed by some item of the list at WP:TPO (notice that It may irritate the users whose comments you are correcting is not the only reason behind this, it is merely the reason for "do not correct spelling/grammar/etc."). None should edit another editor's userpage, and none should edit another editor's talkpage except to post a message, unless there is good reason to do so; and other users are allowed to un-retire after one minute or retirement, or more generally to be stupid, lying, or unpleasant on their own userpages without giving you the right to edit it. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Found missing post, which is as follows;
Comment
Tigraan's report here is disturbing as it glosses over some of the addition fact which I stated to the still open the 3RR response. The ANI here is unfair, and Tigraan should let the 3RR lapse before furthering these issues. The matter is very confusing to both editors and admins, and this is particularly difficult for me to defend myself, especially on multiple fronts.
I do agree that the striking was a big mistake. I did it, and I accept responsibility and any reprimand. I will never do that again, but the rest is circumstantial. I did write the original text, and spent sometime making sure is was logical order and correct, and I did so because the troubles occurring with reverts and misconceptions given by several users.
The claims by the IP and Attic Salt that the first paragraph did not explain was plasma was, and by them changing the order implied something else. I reverted these changes, only to find an Rfc in place. Attic Salt did not debate the problems beforehand to gain consensus, but went straight to the Rfc. I explained my reasons, which they did not really adequately respond.
I suspected that the IP and Attic Salt might be a sock, as their displayed similar and odd behaviours, so I asked for an sock investigation and put that to Attic Salt and explained why. (I was apparently wrong, and I have extended my apologies and explanations of this to Talk:Attic Salt.
Attic Salt's behaviour was a bit erratic of this, including the 'retire' statement, and this was clear indication of not being serious with the Rfc. It might have been naivety of a new user, but there was the possibility it might not be. From the additional confusing responses to the Rfc, its poor wording and posed question being already false, I closed the Rfc formally. (It was already opened 7 days, and showed no chance of of resolution.) I explained the in the closure[71] "If an Rfc is still required, it should state a valid question that meets the guidelines. Else use dispute resolution forums such as an WP:ANI "
The thread in question has now closed, could you please state any continuing issues. (It seems a miscommunication in its closer by Attic Salt may have been a contributing factor.)
(Please note I am having troubles with reply for some reason, and have made four attempts to reply and lost the text, which is very frustrating. Forgive an discrepancies in reply.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I just now removed the "close" by a participant, per WP:RFCEND. Since there does not seem to be a real consensus in terms of bolded Yes/No or Support/Oppose !votes, just let the RfC run for 30 days. Then let an uninvolved person close it, if a close is necessary. It might be more efficient to have a Survey section and a Discussion section, to separate Yes/No !votes from endless threaded discussion. I currently have no comment on the rest of the issues brought up in this thread, as I have not examined individual edits or removals on that talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Arianewiki1 needs to completely stop her WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior before she gets hit with sanctions like a block or one-way IBAN. She needs to completely stop altering other users' posts, and also needs to stay off of other users' talkpages. Keep discussions on article pages, not usertalk, and keep posts civil and respectful and collaborative. Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think WP:BATTLEGROUND is at play here, or at least not intentionally. I think it is more a case of not knowing / understanding the rules. If Arianewiki1 had not reverted my reversion of their striking the RfC, but instead complained/asked for clarification etc. I would never have come here; but they have and the issue was not looking like it was going to disappear by itself.
I do not think I can make a productive reply to Arianewiki1's posting in the current thread. However, I see they now admit striking the RfC was a mistake, though I am not sure they realize why. I still think a strongly worded explanation about WP:INVOLVED (as it applies to editors closing RfCs) and WP:TPG is needed, so that it is very clear they cannot play the ignorance card again. (I am thinking something along the lines of "Unless you have exceptional reasons, don't close RfCs where you are party to the debate, don't change talk page comments, and don't edit others' user pages".) TigraanClick here to contact me 14:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: Why did you have to do this? The alleged combatants equally want it closed because of the complexity of the issue, and reset the Rfc to work through the problems and complexities of the debate. I explained in the closure[72] "If an Rfc is still required, it should state a valid question that meets the guidelines...." The latest closure was made by Attic Salt not me. Please reverse this', let's have a rest and a few breaths, and work through the changes. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RfCs typically run for 30 days. There is absolutely no urgency here. VQuakr (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender:::I did. "The poster can close it at anytime." They did. Attic Salt was the poster. Please read the WP:RFCEND again yourself, and retract. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what it says at all. Please re-read it. Please also learn to indent your posts properly with the correct number of colons in order to nest your reply correctly under the post you are replying to. I have done that for you above. Softlavender (talk)
Softlavender, Since there does not seem to be a real consensus in terms of bolded Yes/No or Support/Oppose !votes suggests that you think the early close rationale is WP:SNOW; it is not. As I read it, the early close rationale is primarily WP:RFCEND item 1. That item links to SNOW, but within a parenthetical "e.g."; in other words SNOW is not the only legitimate reason for the poster to withdraw. If you think it should be, feel free to propose changing that e.g. to an i.e. ―Mandruss☎ 09:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the entire sentence that I wrote rather than quoting part of it. You also misunderstand "WP:RFCEND item 1", which allows for the poster to withdraw an RfC, but not to close it. Softlavender (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please. This is not a battle of wills, and I had nothing to do with the final closure. I disagree with Softlavender because that is not how I read it nor Attica Salt. Withdrawing it means we can start afresh. Softlavender your preventing that. Either ping the contributors and ask their opinion to close, but come back to the ANI. My reputation by sanction is on the line here, and you arguing about trivialities that have nothing to do with me in this instance. Days of this bickering is placing much stress on me. Please stop this now! Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing closing with withdrawing. If he wants to withdraw, he can simply withdraw, but he cannot close his own RfC, assess the consensus, etc. Your own actions are independent of his (you are two different people), and nobody is confusing the two, so you have nothing to worry about on that score. Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good ole parallel debating. We should devise a way to transclude the article talk into the ANI part. I'm probably reversing my position and my latest is here and here. ―Mandruss☎ 09:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone uninvolved please collapse all the above (starting at Why did you have to do this? The alleged combatants...)? It is about a second closure of the RfC, this time by Attic Salt, that may or may not be out of process but is certainly non-actionable and not really relevant to the subject of the thread (actions taken before and by Arianewiki1). TigraanClick here to contact me 14:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed the RfC again, [73]. It may be necessary for at least one un-involved admin to comment on the closure. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apparent "creation" of BLP signatures and their use in infoboxes
Admins, I hope I'm in the right place. Just seeking advice as to whether it's legitimate to create signatures and add them to BLP infoboxes, as decorations, it appears. This raises several issues:
No verification is provided of whether these signatures are the real ones, and if so, how they were acquired; surely the file description pages should state whether they were copied from the original or a copy of it.
Is it a potential invasion of privacy?
Is it a security breach? The display presumably makes it a proposition to forge the BLP's signature in real life.
What does it add to readers' understanding of the topic?
We don't seem to have a stated policy—just an essay of dubious status that doesn't really help.
Please clarify your link. WP:SLR is not an essay but a WikiProject which served its stated purpose and is now defunct. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. Sorry, now fixed. Tony(talk) 13:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great points...had fake problem at MJs page many years ago. I see no need for them.--Moxy (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since Richard Harris died 15 years ago, this is not a BLP issue. A Google Image search for "autograph richard harris" produces dozens of examples of his signature, and he did have the idiosyncrasy of capitalizing his last name. Since "Infobox person" incorporates a signature field, it is to be expected that some editors will try to fill it. As for abetting forgery, that is a problem in the autograph market and perhaps elsewhere, but the fact that I could find dozens of examples of the Harris signature in ten seconds indicates that Wikipedia is not driving the problem. Cullen328Let's discuss it 17:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of them are of living people, though. Plus; the comments say "signature of XXX" instead of "my re-creation of signature of XXX". IMO, they should all be deleted. Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could just get rid of the "signature" field, which is of dubious encyclopedic value. Or, if not, add fields for fingerprints and photographs of a lock of the subject's hair. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1 - I've never ever seen the point to these signature fields and IMHO I agree with BMK this option should be removed from infoboxes (and then all signatures here deleted) (Perhaps there should be an RFC on this?) - What encyclopedic value do these actually serve ? ... none as far as i can tell. –Davey2010Talk 20:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've never understood the reasoning behind having people's signatures either. Maybe a mention in the article and a non-recreation picture somewhere if there's actually something noteworthy about it, but if it isn't mentioned anywhere in the article there doesn't seem to me to be a reason to include it. But that's probably a discussion better held on a Village pump. And if we're going down that road don't forget iris scans and genetic code! ansh666 20:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree entirely with BMK and Davey. This, for instance, is a complete joke and offers no benefit whatsoever. CassiantoTalk 20:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Immediate RfC required. Get shot of them. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 21:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the value in having the signatures of say, American presidents, whose signatures are employed to codify laws. But signatures of film actors? I also think this would make for a useful RfC. ATraintalk 21:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ask and ye shall receive. I've started an RfC at VPP on a proposal to remove signature fields from infoboxes. It can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I created some of the signature images under discussion. These are genuine autographs that I have and have scanned in and saved as image files. Let me know what I should do, whether that be edit the image descriptions or delete them. Thanks :)
Pinging User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and User:Cullen328, who have had something to do with this. The content at LACE are completely unacceptable, for reasons given by the IP editor above. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I haven't had much to do with the LACE article at all; but yeah, there's certianly issues there. Possible revdel required? -the accusations of libel. I left a message about her grandfather's article but that was really just the adition of a load of closely-paraphrased cruft- whereas this is venom. Thanks for ping btw. Night! — fortunavelut luna 22:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Drmies, I am aware of this situation and received a massive wall-of-text talk page message from this new editor, which you kindly moved to the correct spot. Sadly, I have been derelict in my Wikipedia duties for many hours today because of the demands of my family and professional life. But I will now write a lengthy response that will attempt to set our new friend straight. The LACE stuff was a 30 year old grudge and WAY out of line, while the additions to her notable grandfather's biography were not much better. Keeping my fingers crossed. Cullen328Let's discuss it 23:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BMK. Drmies and anyone else interested, I have replied to this new editor on my talk page. I will now leave a note for her on her talk page. Cullen328Let's discuss it 01:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The user has replied on my talk page, if anyone is interested. Cullen328Let's discuss it 02:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that when a new editor capitalizes words which are not usually capitalized in modern English – in this case "Art", "Artist" and "Visual Artist", "Writer", "IP Theft", "Copyright", "Grandfather", "Libel" – they're almost invariably trying to either WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or pushing a WP:FRINGE theory? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those also go with certain vitamin deficiencies, too. Anmccaff (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The edits made by the anonymous user here are minor but so far 100% inaccurate, if not vandalism. This person is mostly changing the amounts of box office earnings mentioned in film articles. If they're meant to be updates, the numbers are not supported by of the sources given (and some of these numbers were "updated" to be lower, so it's not a reflection of a movie earning more over time). The user has also incorrectly changed the name of a waterway and posted a falsehood in a list of films. I've corrected/reverted everything so far. Jessicapierce (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jessicapierce: thanks for taking the time to fix and report this. However, it's difficult to take action when an editor hasn't been warned. If you go into your preferences and click on the Gadgets tab, you can enable Twinkle under Browsing. Twinkle will assist you in warning vandals and other disruptive editors. Once they've been appropriately warned (typically, four warnings – see WP:WARNVAND), you can use Twinkle to report them to WP:AIV. Twinkle also has other useful functions, such as nominating an article for deletion and requesting page protection. Unfortunately, Twinkle won't write an article for you, but maybe that will come in a new update. If you'd rather not use Twinkle, you could add warnings manually, like {{subst:uw-error2}} ~~~~. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks so much for your reply. This end of Wikipedia is very much not my strong suit - it's only recently that I've moved beyond doing minor copy edits. I'm afraid I don't understand how to warn an IP user who has no talk page. I've never actually warned anyone. If you could point me to a resource on this, I'd be glad to try and figure it out. Thank you! Jessicapierce (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jessicapierce: a lot of this stuff seems complicated at first, but it's surprisingly easy once you get the hang of it. If you click on the talk page tab as usual, you'll see options to create the page or start a new section. If you're using the default interface style for Wikipedia (ugh, it's ugly), they should be in the upper right. Either is fine, but starting a new section is easier because it allows you to comfortably enter a subject header, like "warning" or "about your recent edits". Twinkle can take care of all this stuff for you, which is one reason why I like it. The problem with Twinkle, however, is that communicating through templates is a bit impersonal. Sometimes I like to write my own messages. For further information, you might want to check out Help:Talk pages, Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings, and Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (CVU). The CVU is good for asking questions and stuff, but you can always ask questions on my talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: That is excellent information, and helped me more than probably the last ten pages I read of the editors' handbook. Thank you so much for taking the time! Jessicapierce (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Help to log in
I seem to have become unlogged and WP will not log me in again with my usual password. I've requested change of password but it does not send it to my email...and in fact has not been sending notifications to that address for several weeks. My User name is Mzilikazi1939 and I'd be very grateful if someone can suggest a way out of this dilemma. 78.151.173.252 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I need to connect with my long watch list. 78.151.173.252 (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any responsible admin would agree to what you're asking. There's no way to confirm that the ID in question is actually yours. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, Mzilikazi1939 (talk·contribs) was logged on earlier today. If the password got changed, the account will probably need to be indef'd - and you'll need to set up a new account. As to the watch list, that will be evident from the editing history. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this editor seems not to have an email address associated with the account link.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of the situation where the system has changed the password without a request from the user. However, I have heard of multiple situations where the user thought they were using the right password but eventually realize they were using the wrong password. I hope that's the case here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds way too fishy to me. There's no way to confirm that the IP is indeed the user. Blackmane (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is just me, what I would do, but if I wasn't able to log on for some reason, I would do one of two things:
(1) If it appeared as if the problem was not going to be solved, I would immediately start a new ID, connect the old one to it with a redirect, and start recreating my watchlist from the publicly available contribution list of my old ID. I'd certainly get most of them that way, and other ones could be added as I remembered them.
(2) If it seemed as if this was a temporary set-back, and I'd be able to get back into my account eventually, I'd simply make edits with whatever IP I'm on or I'd make a temporary ID as in #1 and reverse the redirects when I recovered my account.
It does not seem as if either of these things have happened here. The IP hasn't made any more edits aside from those about recovering their account, and the Mzilikazi1939 user pages haven't been redirected.As I said, that's just what I would do, but it does seem like a logical and reasonable response to such a dilemma, and the IP hasn't taken those steps -- unless they created a new account and haven't gotten around to connecting it with the old one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My attention has been brought here because the editor's first action using this IP address was to post on my talk page asking for help. Bishonen, acting in her capacity as an official talk page stalker, then posted to that page suggesting posting here about it.
Recently I received a notification of a failed attempt by someone else to log into my account. Once before someone requested a password reset on my account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be irrelevant, but I see that I declined an unblock request from one of the sockpuppets on the sockfarm that SpacemanSpiff mentioned, and removed its talk page access. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson: The chap uses a Jio mobile connection, typically he has IPv4 addresses starting with 47. and numerous ranges of IPv6. If your notifications mentioned an IP from those ranges then it's him. I routinely request global locking for named socks as the nuisance extends to multiple projects. —SpacemanSpiff 10:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacemanSpiff: Unfortunately the recent notification of an attempted log in doesn't tell me the IP address. All it says is "There has been a failed attempt to log in to your account from a new device. Please make sure your account has a strong password." The attempted password reset was quite a while ago, and I don't think it was in any way related. I don't really know why I mentioned it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem seems to reside in a failed attempt to set up a new Google account using the Mzilikazi name, so there's no email associated with it. Surely there's an Administrator who can authenticate via the IP that I am who I claim to be (it happened when WP Editor accused me of socking back in 2014) and then offer a way out of my dilemma. Creating a new personality is a poor option; I have over 400 articles on my old watch list. 78.151.173.252 (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hopelessly untechy. Now I've created a new persona, HOW do I reconnect it with Mzilikazi1939, please? Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sweetpool50: alias Mzilikazi1939 alias 78.151.173.252: first of all, I have every sympathy with you. You are evidently finding this situation very frustrating, and I really wish there were something I could do to help you. Unfortunately, though, since you don't have an email associated with your original account and you don't have a committed identity as far as I know there is no way of getting access to your old account back, unless you discover that you have forgotten the password but have managed to find it or remember it again. You say "Surely there's an Administrator who can authenticate via the IP that I am who I claim to be". There are people, known as CheckUsers, who have access to tools which enable them to do this, but there are very strict rules about wheat purposes they are allowed to use those tools for, to protect editors' confidentiality, and I am pretty sure this is not one of the situations where they are allowed to do it. The policy Wikipedia:CheckUser says "Broadly, checks must only be made in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption, or to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing", which does not cover your situation. Also, even if a CheckUser confirms that the two accounts you have used are the same person, he or she would not have access to the technical tools to reset your password, and whether it would be possible for him or her to get one of the technical people to do it I don't know. You can try asking a CheckUser to help if you like, but I am 99.99% certain that it will be a waste of your time. There is a list of CheckUsers at Wikipedia:CheckUser#Users with CheckUser permissions. I'm afraid you will almost certainly just have to accept that you have lost your old account, unless you discover a password that you had forgotten.
You ask "HOW do I reconnect it with Mzilikazi1939, please?" If you mean how do you get it to give you access to things like the old watch list, I'm afraid the answer is that you can't. The only sense in which you can connect the two accounts together is to put notes on their user pages and/or talk pages saying something like "This is an alternative account of xxxx. I created the second account because yyyy .... etc". Once again, I do have every sympathy with you in what must be a very frustrating situation, but I'm afraid I can't offer you anything better than this, and I guess if there were a solution to your problem then someone would by now have come up with it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sympathy, James. It's a pity to wave goodbye to a 7-year history under that name, but I'll take your word for it. I really don't remember changing the password, but if I did there isn't a record of it in the file I keep of such things. I've already left a note on the Sweetpool page. But what I was seeking advice on above was in connection with a suggestion from Beyond My Ken yesterday: "If it appeared as if the problem was not going to be solved, I would immediately start a new ID and connect the old one to it with a redirect". Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, you can't "connect" the two accounts in terms of having your old edits added to your new edits, all you can do is to put redirects on your old user pages so that that transfer to your new ones. This is what I eventually did with User:Before My Ken and User:Between My Ken (which you can take a look at to see what I did), but the edits I made with those earlier accounts are forever disconnected from the edits I've made since 2009 with this account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you need help, I can talk you through the process. Just let me know on my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the template has been protected now. As to purging the cache, add &action=purge to the URL of any affected page. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, though this is a pretty uncommon problem these days, there ought to be some admin-only tool that lists unprotected templates with more than a certain threshold number of transclusions so those templates can be considered for protection in the future. This one has over 300. That and I'm sure there's something that can be done with edit filters (i.e., adding images to templates set to display at a large size, adding hardcoded HTML/CSS to templates, etc.). I'm a bit surprised we still have this problem. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another template with 1,300+ transclusion was also recently vandalised with porn. Is this a very common problem? HaEr48 (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, {{re}} was exploited earlier as well. This is more common with frequently used template redirects. Either edit filter or a tool that shows top list of highly visible pages, something needs to be done. Alex ShihTalk 07:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be a lot more common, especially before template protection. The only thing to do was to full protect templates, but then people who worked on templates (who often weren't admins) would have to jump through hoops to commit changes... so protection wasn't so popular on templates. Whatever we do, it's important to note that this sort of image vandalism is not the only thing people have done to mess up templates. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is some kind of search or report generation tool for finding those templates. I've forgotten the specifics but someone here or at VPT can probably remember where it is. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we exclude already semi-protected templates, maybe the targeted templates above would appear somewhere on top. HaEr48 (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are now zero unprotected templates with over 1,000 transclusions. Of those that were previously unprotected, and have over 5,000 transclusions, I template-protected. The rest I semi'd. I've also created a filter— MusikAnimaltalk 17:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t see the rev-del’d vandalism linked above, but it sounds a lot like an instance I reverted last night at the redirect {{Snf}}. It has fewer than a hundred transclusions IIRC, so apparently not only the most heavily used templates are being targeted. Anyway, perhaps an admin would like to have a peek at the history and see if it’s as worthy of being hidden as the others evidently were.—Odysseus1479 23:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to flush the caches of all the pages that transclude a template that has been vandalized and fixed? And a good way to learn about such things? Dicklyon (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was/am offline for few days. I saw the vandalism and came here to report it. But it is already taken care of by MusikAnimal. @Dicklyon: In monskin there is an asterisk at the top row, it purges the cache of that page without confirmation. I am not sure about the default theme, but I think it is in the "more" dropdown menu. All we need to do is find recently edited templates. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User blocked. good riddance.Blackmane (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I first encountered User:Webbling during a routine anti-vandalism patrol. I came across this edit, which I reverted for NPOV violations. When Webbling reverted my reversion [78], I again restored the article to it's previous state. At this point, there was a 50 minute break in editing to Eric Ebron, during which Webbling and I discussed the issue on my talk page. This was ended with this edit, which I again reverted. Since I noticed that there were other revisions on the article that the user was not warned for, I issued a level 4 warning.
I then received a personal attack from Webbling on my talk page[79], on theirs [80], and in an edit summary [81]. I could use some assistance. Hamtechperson 07:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I issued the required ANI notice on User Talk: Webbling, I found another personal attack having been left for another user. [82]Hamtechperson 07:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like WP:NOTTHERE, not everybody manages to get into serious troubles after not even having made 20 edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"In bird culture this is considered a dick move" -Bird Person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbling (talk • contribs) 08:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since they continued, I blocked them indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... and since the block was followed by use of talk page to post yet more infantile attacks, I have removed talk page access. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
109.97.246.194 (previously editig as 109.96.58.6) keeps adding continuously birth/death details to biographies of Romanian politicians of previous centuries, always without sources, violating WP:VER, despite the fact he was warned regarding this issue. These data are not easily verifiable [on Internet], and are potentially false. In a few articles they was reverted by me, in other by other user(s), and in a few places like Ion Creangă (politician) and Teodor Bârcă they pushed their changes repeatedly via two different anonymous user "accounts" (sock contributions intersection) after intermediary reverts by Number 57.
This is also a well-known case on Romanian Wikipedia, where it was reported several times, and a number of IP addresses and ranges with identical ed. pattern were blocked (e.g. 92.83.126.46, 109.97.246.194, 109.96.0.0/16). --XXN, 15:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previously an abuse filter created by MusikAnimal was used to stop them as they always used the article title as an edit summary. Unfortunately they seem to have worked out not to do that now so their edits are getting through. Perhaps a range block would work? I came across them some time ago when they were adding what often turned out to be false birth/death dates/places to Israeli politicians of Romanian descent. Number57 16:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RfC Closure Review Request
I have never posted a request for a closure review before, so please bear with me if I make mistakes in how to present this.
Swarm advised me to post this on ANI. Attempts to discuss with the closer have been unfruitful, as the revised version of the closing still presents the same problems as the original. [83]
It is striking that the closer has included in his closing that under WP:COMMONSENSE (an essay) WP:RS are not required per WP:V, if a majority holds a certain "opinion". He imposed this community "Truth" in his closing over the STRONG objections of at least three editors (including myself).
The closing also supervoted on a sourcing dispute between myself and Icewhiz regarding WP:RECENT, WP:AGEMATTERS and WP:CRYSTAL. The closer has "resolved" this sourcing dispute between two editors by supervoting, where no clear consensus emerged regarding the policy based source disputes.
It is fairly difficult to have a consensus discussion with editors who don't feel they need to follow our policies. In fact, my recent attempts at discussion on the source page regarding "Parliamentary Democracy" have produced comments similar to the extended discussion: [84]
(This includes use of primary sources and opinion articles.) Unfortunately the closing has limited me to discussion with the same editors (which has not been productive).
I am not asking that any content disputes be resolved here, but I would like to pursue other avenues of dispute resolution - I am leaning towards some combination of mediated discussion or RS/n to resolve the disputes that will arise about revisions to the lede. The Mediated Discussion would be to ensure that our core policies are respected (including WP:V) and RS/n would allow for independent review of questions regarding WP:AGEMATTERS and WP:CRYSTAL between myself and Icewhiz (Which were inappropriately supervoted by the closer.) I would like to know if the community would be ok with this.
Additionally, I would ask that the community consider overturning the RfC so that its non-policy based outcome does not bias future discussions. Currently editors seem to feel their position is "strengthened" by the outcome of the RfC and the closing, both of which demonstrated a shocking disregard for core policies including WP:NPOV, WP:RS and especially WP:V.
I am also asking the community to consider the lack of WP:RS presented in this discussion in light of the complex and voluminous body of scholarship on Democracy in ISLAMIC societies. (As just one example, the lengthy article I just read in "The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Law") - I welcome community discussion on how to work this into our articles based on recent developments in scholarship, but I don't think this will be possible without addressing the problems that were created by this closing.
There was a protracted discussion in the RfC between Seraphim System and a number of other editors, including me (in retrospect, I probably should've just voted and provided a number of sources - I'm learning). The RfC contained a number of elements (with varying levels of support, however support for all was fairly clear). Regarding striking democracy which Seraphim System is attempting to challenge (based on Britannica) - there was support from @Tiptoethrutheminefield:, @GGT:, @Yerevantsi:, @Alexikoua:, @EtienneDolet:, @Jeppiz:, @AusLondonder:, @Khirurg:, @KazekageTR: (who did not vote, but did post extensive comments), and IceWhiz. Seraphim System was the sole dissenter per my reading of the discussion (so 10-1). Sources were provided in some of the discussion. Following the close, Seraphim System also engaged in recent edit warring which was reported to 3RR [85] by @Dr.K.: regarding the use of democracy. Recent sources (including, for instance, the 2016 Democracy Index) do not support Seraphim System's position. This is not a content dispute between two editors - but between Seraphim System and approx. 11 other editors. For the record, I did not open the RfC, and while I engaged in discussion with Seraphim System - I was not the main driver here. I also want to note that Seraphim System also engaged in what some may see as "retaliatory editing" on Israel on this matter - Israel Revision as of 03:12, 8 August 2017, which she also discussed on the Turkey talk page - [86][87].Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
he content dispute is not going to be resolved here, so I don't see any need to engage it. The issue here is that at least THREE established editors objected to the fact that those who supported the proposal did so on the basis of their personal opinions, and "Truth", rather then WP:V and WP:RS. The fact that the RfC closing was not based on WP:RS is undisputed, it is plainly stated in the closing itself where WP:COMMONSENSE (an essay) is cited. The sourcing disputes from the extended discussion (that only a few editors participated in) should not have been supervoted in the closing in an attempt to capitalize on the disorder and confusion created by this RfC. Seraphim System(talk) 15:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you missed that the part. essay was a supplementary guide to IAR which is a plicy!Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I am not seeing any alternate-way this could be resolved without another RFC, as discussed in the addendum at my original closure.Thus, I stand by it.I also fail to see concerns of super-voting, save the one that would be obviously present in a version of the close as wished by Seraphim.And participants do not need to partake in extended discussions to make their view heard by the closer.And @ All those who wish to evaluate my close:-- Please mandatorily go through the entire discussion.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 15:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, let me be crystal clear on this point, one would have to bend over backwards to construe the conduct during this RfC as being good faith conduct. I'm concerned that the bias against the concept of Muslim democracy as a whole, and the non-source based POV was already upheld in the closing under WP:COMMONSENSE (an essay.) Whatever went wrong in this RfC will likely be repeated in a second. I have already stated in other venues that I feel the outcome was racist. In the real world if a court said "Evidence is only required to pass judgment on whites", I would think it was racist. And I think this outcome is racist. I think that if an RfC was held in ARBPIA to remove the word democracy because Israelis abuse Palestinians and no sources were given, only a list of "bad things about Israel" based on comments like "Israel is not a democracy because it is a Jewish State" that all hell would break loose on Wikipedia. It is a double-standard, and I would strongly prefer moderation or participation from uninvolved editors in a sane and more public discussion, that respects our core policies. (Whatever the outcome of that discussion may be.) As for the IP vandals who wrote "musrat whore" on my usertalk page, the IP was blocked, but most likely the editor is still one of us right? And I don't know who it is, and we are never going to find him. The sockpuppetry and abuse and racism in this topic area is rampant and notorious - ideally these articles would be cleaned up through a major community effort and then placed under ARBCOM restrictions. But for now I am asking for more community involvement in resolving the issues that have been raised by the RfC. Seraphim System(talk) 16:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your t/p reply to me and the afore-mentioned post makes me more stubborn to stay by my close.But let me strongly caution you to avoid casting unsubstantiated and unwarranted aspersions and personal attacks on other editors.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't bother. You closed an RfC based on WP:COMMONSENSE. Racism on this level, where controversial edits about a Muslim country don't need to meet WP:V because they are "Common Sense" should not be allowed to fester behind WP:ASPERSIONS. Enough is enough. I don't know if the community wants to "approve" of this reprehensible conduct and abuse of our processes, but let me highlight some of the comments the closure was based on:
OR/unsourced analysis about whether Turkey was ever a democracy: forced assimilation practices, ethnic cleansing and repressions, towards all non-Turkish minorities. - not only is this unrelated synthesis, it's also untrue.
Intellectual self-gratification: Reminds me of Voltaire's whole Holy Roman Empire saying: it wasn't Holy, wasn't Roman, and wasn't an Empire...In fact, it's hard to say if Turkey ever was a democracy.
Apparently this is all you need to say: Turkey even denies that an Armenian genocide took place.
"Well, it would be highly misleading for our readers and would ultimately undermine the project's credibility. So the way we come to that conclusion is through consensus based off of reliable sourcing, but more specifically for the lead and in this particular case, it should be based off of the reliably sourced content already found within the article." <--- from the nominator (of course this is all still sourced in the body of the article.)
Unsourced POV: "Sitting on top of lost civilizations doesn't make you culturally embracing either, especially when you've annihilated both culturally and physically those civilizations themselves."
Once again, allowing a small group of editors to behave in a way that is destructive to the encyclopedia is damaging for the project as a while. One issue is that the "opinion synthesis" this RfC is based on are verifiablely false and in violation of every single one of our policies (but that's ok because it's an Islamic country and Erdogan is a Muslim, so its Common Sense). But I have become involved with other things, and if that is what the community wants to legitimize, then ultimately it will end up undermining the integrity of the project and put it more on the level of a tabloid then a scholarly resource. There will be forks, though, especially in other countries. It's only a matter of time. Seraphim System(talk) 16:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could I kindly ask that someone post a plain link (not a diff) to where this RfC is? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's the correct link and also pinging the other editors who objected and might want to comment here GGTKazekageTRSeraphim System(talk) 16:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the closer could be asked to stop revising the RfC while this AN/I proceeding is open to avoid introducing new confusion to his already messy and off-topic close. He has just edited the closing to add WP:AGEMATTERS, an issue for which there is no consensus on talk. I have reviewed the entire discussion the the only two editors who discussed the Britannica source were me and IceWhiz - the closer has just added his "tiebreaker" vote on this source dispute as the "policy justification" for his close. I don't say this lightly, but I don't see much worth salvaging in this RfC. Seraphim System(talk) 17:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No other editor supported democracy (there was some support for secular and other bits). Most editors probably left the discussion as it turned into a long wall of text and bludgeoning with some other elements. It is not surprising others ceased to respond to source arguements with some limited merit buried in the wall of text.Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Serahim-- Each and every RFC participant is not required to counter your each and every specific query to register a oppose vote against your broader axis of argumentation.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 18:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AN/I can't and shouldn't resolve the content dispute, and I am not asking them to. This is not only about democracy, or a continuation of one aspect the content dispute - different editors raised different objections to different pieces of the removal (including secular). The RfC AND its closing are a mess, and creating more problems then helping. It is entirely based on unverifiable, incorrect and unsourced POV. We do not write Wikipedia articles based on the Truth. Looking at the policies, what we are supposed to do is follow the established and widely held academic consensus until it is superseded. This is an issue on which no clear consensus emerged from the RfC where the arguments were based on bigoted rhetoric that is not directly (or even indirectly) supported by A SINGLE source. Add to all this the confirmed sock puppetry during the RfC. I think the whole thing should be reopened for source-based discussion amongst reasonable editors, and more community eyes on it can't hurt. I leave you with this Wikipedia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzK9ScQ0LlISeraphim System(talk) 21:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The original close was a bit oddly and inappropriately prescriptive; the revised close is much much better and definitely not overturnable. Rather than making drama (and leaving us with bizarre videos) the OP should get to work trying to gain consensus for a new very high level summary of the body in the LEAD. This is one of the hardest things in WP, btw, and something you should fully expect to take a long arc of careful work to achieve a stable consensus for. Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I have better things to do with my time. The new revised closing is worse and it is supervoting. I am intensely disappointed that you are pretending it is not. I am not interested in working to gain "consensus" with editors who have trolled me on numerous articles (including the Israel article) and who have stated several times that they can make unsourced additions because some things are "difficult" to source. The Turkey articles are not high traffic and if there is no consensus to do serious work on them i.e. if as usual the community thinks I should be the one carrying the full burden of improving the article, then they will have to stay in the extremely poor condition I found them. It is really unfair to ask that of one single editor like it is my responsibility and I have not done my part. (When there is confirmed participation in this RfC of an account connected to long term abusive sockpuppetry in this topic area, you really can't even pretend to hide behind "consensus" this time.) Seraphim System(talk) 13:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the video - should I apologize if I am not really that invested in the outcome? It is racism and it is hard not to take it personally, especially when it is "protected" behind community policies that other editors are not even following. Without a significant increase of diversity of views in the editing pool from the top down, significant reform of the broken RfA process and the way that we handle SPI, my "careful work" is actually a waste of time. How much time can I expect to put in? The closing relies on IAR even though not a single source is cited in the Survey section. It's fairly disingenuous when we all know that our editors have no incentive and no reward for their "careful work." Everyone here is quick to say they stand with the freedom of the Turkish people, as long as it is an excuse to say something negative about "Islamofascist" Erdogan. As a Turkish editor, I have to say that an editing environment where abuses of one government (Israel) are excused and its democracy is still lauded (I am going to write about this off-wiki and do a full comparison, and if anyone wants to see the side by side of articles in these two areas, email me.) While abuses of another (Turkey) are legitimately and strongly criticized, by the same editors. It is obvious racism and as a Turkish editor, it is a very unhealthy environment and I don't want anything to do with it, especially when the community's double standard it is legitimized through proceedings like this. It is doubly unhealthy because it turns Wikipedia into a BATTLEGROUND, that puts me in a very bad position discussing Turkish democracy with editors who have in the past openly made Anti-Muslim and Pro-Israel comments on talk pages. It is a subject I am interested in discussing, but not like this. At least on ARBPIA, we have more editors who are interested so after a prolonged effort we do get some good work done and community enforcement of policies like WP:V is exceptionally high- Jytdog if you really think IAR is an appropriate policy to cite when closing an RfC, then I want the consensus that emerges from this AN/I report to be clear about that, because I will apply that consensus in my closings. Seraphim System(talk) 14:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making it clear that you are Turkish, which helps make sense out of all the emotion you have around this. You should keep that in mind yourself. And with regard to your comments about closings, see WP:POINT. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So it's ok to call my ethnicity into question as effecting editing, where IceWhiz discloses that he is active on Hebrew Wikipedia - I have been told that we consider disclosures of race/religion to be protected. But since I am Turkish so I guess it is ok to call me "emotional" - I really don't think you are in any position to offer me tibits of your didactic wisdom right now. This is not about my "emotion" it is a real and observable problem - trying to write it off because of my national background is WEAK. I will put the language in a comparative chart thing. If you want a copy of the incredibly unemotional study I am planning to put together, all you need to do is email me, I will send a copy to WMF and Jimmy. Finally, why are you citing WP:POINT if you are defending IAR as appropriate for a closing? I have read WP:POINT - something for which there is consensus at AN/I is not POINTY. Doing something you think is bad behavior before a community discussion is POINTY. Read it yourself Jyt. Seraphim System(talk) 14:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphim System: I request you strike the above comment, and report this to oversight for revdel per WP:OUTING (and perhaps a few other policies - e.g. WP:NPA, WP:AGF). While I do admit to edit in the Hebrew Wikipedia (as may also be seen in my global account edit summaries!) - I have not stated, to the best of my knowledge, the other personal information that you are making assumptions about. Regarding the Turkey article - you are turning something which was not a personal dispute, and was argued on the merits, into what would appear to be one. I was one of many in that page (frankly - drawn in by the RfC, and my prior knowledge both of Turkey and contemporary sources).Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you did on the Israel article t/p, where you were arguing that sources are not needed but I would not understand because I am not Jewish as a justification for content you wanted to keep in the article. You may not have said it explicitly, but it was clear from context since you proceeded to make a long argument about the Halakha and said that all Jews know in their heart the longing of the Jewish people to return to Jerusalem, that is how I understood the meaning of what you said. If you are now denying it explicitly, sure I will strike it, even though I think it is kind of silly. Seraphim System(talk) 14:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was User:Debresser, I got you two mixed up because the argument was so similar. If I remember correctly I was discussing with him, but then he was topic banned shortly before you joined the discussion. But sure, I will strike it. He also feels its a personal attack whenever anyone even mentions it! Funny. Anyway, the comment was about me, not you - don't take it personally. Fortunately, I am not that emotional. As for AGF, that is not something you should say about yourself when you assume the worst of others. Shake! Or, Quack Quack if you would prefer. Seraphim System(talk) 14:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I regret in engaging in that discussion with you - it was pointless, and devolved into a FORUMY discussion other a really elementary point (the importance of Jersusalem (and IIRC alt. names) to Jews going way back - based on knowledge of the sources). However, all I said there was that I have a working knowledge of Halakhic Judaism - as I also have with other religions (Several branches of Islam and Christianity, to a lesser extent others). Your statements here should be revdelled per WP:OUTING - I suggest you approach oversight or an admin with appropriate permissions. People generally do not like their editing called into question on the basis of their implied ethnicity, religion, or nationality - I haven't called your motivations into question in this regard, though your conduct here is far from exemplary.Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I perceive mention of my religion or ethnicity as a personal attack only when it is mentioned without any connection to the actual points at hand. Which is something you should definitely refrain from doing. Debresser (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is abominable that the response so far is: This is one of the hardest things in WP, btw, and something you should fully expect to take a long arc of careful work to achieve a stable consensus for. Anyone who reviews the RfC can see that it was closed based on IAR over objections that there was no source based discussion. One of the editors participating was banned as a suspected sock puppet of a long term problem editor in this topic area. I have spent more then a reasonable amount of time arguing with sock puppets, and my conduct during this RfC has gone above and beyond the requirements of good faith and AGF. The problem is not me, or my willingness to do work and it is a discredit to you to try to blame this on me. The problem is admin inaction, the broken RfA process and the lack of serious Sock Puppet investigations simply because improving articles on Turkey is just not a personal priority for most of the editors here and the topic area is more of a playground for trolls and sock puppets then a place to do any "careful work". Denying it and pretending there is no problem really begins to cross the line from the personal behavioral problems of a few editors to institutionalized policy-based racism. The fact that I do not enjoy working in an environment that is racist does not make me "emotional." It is entirely something that I am morally obligated to report and object to, and then I truly do, and please believe me, have better things to do then continue to argue about it, in good faith or otherwise. Seraphim System(talk) 16:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In other words editors making comments that "Turks are like this" or "Turks are like that" or "Turks have done this" etc. should be required to post the WP:RS that these comments are based on. Otherwise, our talk page becomes difficult to distinguish from Stormfront. Do you see the difference: one is neutral discussion of views presented in secondary sources and the other is a collection of racist personal opinions that is now being given the status of consensus under "IAR" - I really, really hope that you can see the difference between a personal opinion and a statement that is based on WP:RS. What we have in this RfC are unsourced generalizations based on race/ethnicity - allowing this without requiring a discussion of the sources means that we can not gauge whether the source is a respected and widely cited academic source or Stormfront. In cleaning up this area, I have in the past actually found content that I was only able to trace back to Stormfront - so I absolutely reject any attempt to characterize this as "emotional" and I am repeating here what I said over and over again in the RfC, that consensus discussion must be based on sources. The close based on IAR should be overturned (with apologies for how much TIME I have had to spend on something that should be SIMPLE.) We can play a round of Stormfront or RfC, where I highlight comments from both and we try to guess whether the comment is from a Wikipedia RfC or a racist forum - here at Wikipedia we require the use of high quality sources. IAR is supposed to be invoked to make non controversial improvement, not in support of unsourced controversial comments that denigrate an entire nation. When we make critical statements like this on WIKIPEDIA, they really have to reflect directly an academic consensus or significant minority view that is verifiable in secondary sources.
In regards to various allegations made here regarding racism of particular editors or the community as a whole (including a comparison to Storm Front), I want to point out the following diff: 14:14 9 oct 2017 in which Seraphim System poses the hypothetical of genocide of Jews in the context of the abstract concept of democracy. While one might posit this is but a hypothetical, there is some resonance here regarding claims of editorial competence/bias and OUTing (correctly or incorrectly) of allegedly Jewish editors.Icewhiz (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you know what my WP:RS were? There were like, six of them, including a law review article and the Center for Constitutional Rights in NY (which files amici briefs with the United States Supreme Court) - it is not a hypothetical, I have actually tried to add this to the list of genocides before, and would have given my sources if asked in this or ANY other discussion.
EDIT: Sorry I thought you meant when I tried to add Palestinian Genocide - honestly your argument is a strawman, though it's worth noting that even though it was on a USER TALK page I STILL posted a source. If you don't know what Democracy means why should your unsourced opinions on it be given ANY weight in a consensus discussion? You think Democracy is the Bill of Rights, it's NOT. The BoR would not have even been passed without Col. Mason. The rights that we take for granted are not an entitlement and they are not a guarantee, they are privilege that Americans very nearly did not secure. It is a debt owed to those who stood up for it, but it has f*ked all to do with Democracy as a system of government. Seraphim System(talk) 19:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not comment on the merits of the line of reasoning, nor would this be the place to do so, I merely thought it would be relevant to point out the choice of the hypothetical (which is entirely arbitrary and disconnected from the arguement, though the particular choice in an arguement after 1946 offers some obvious rebuttals).Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an abstraction it doesn't matter nor does it have ANYTHING to do with the fact that t/p discussions should be based on sources and not personal opinions, especially when the topic is about something proctected and controversial like race/religion/etc. An abstraction of a fundamental principle of democratic theory, and the example that illustrates this fundamental principle is in no way comparable or analogous to what happened in this RfC. Nazism is probably the most common example discussed in University politics and philosophy courses when discussing whether democracy can produce bad outcomes and the sources for this are basic, widely accepted and copious. Seraphim System(talk) 20:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway I think this is what you mean [88] and historically I absolutely want to clarify publicly that historically, academic consensus stops short of calling Hitler's rise to power democratic - the consensus is to characterize it is a failure of democracy because of [89] and the Reichstag Fire, so it has nothing to do with "1946" or Nazis - it is a common thought experiment in philosophy/theory/law classes to illustrate the basic concept of a rigid constitution, or Thrasymachus, supermajorities, or any number of other issues that come up in University level courses where different theories of democratic government are discussed like this [90] (yes I have actually read all this boring stuff). There is also this to consider: [91] - the fact that an abundance of sources exists for a thoughtful discussion makes it all the more frustrating that IAR was invoked here to support a consensus based on unsourced personal political opinions that reflected a deep ignorance of the subject matter. Seraphim System(talk) 00:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What a mess about what a mess!! This appears to be a completely botched review of a good-faith botched closure. My first comment is that this is technically the wrong forum for RFC closure review, which should be done at WP:AN, not at WP:ANI. (I know; I have had a few closes reviewed at WP:AN.) However, now that this is well underway, it would be unproductive to move this to AN. Second, this appears to be a re-discussion of the original issues about the lede, rather than a discussion limited to the propriety of the close. If this needs to be re-discussed, it should be done by re-opening the RFC, or by a new RFC, not here. Third, it appears that the RFC has been reworked considerably after the close, which makes it nearly impossible, at least for me, to determine whether it was properly closed. Fourth, my own recommendation at this point is to Set Aside the close and the entire RFC and have a new RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon:--It may be borne in mind that it was my re-edited close which was challenged.(Barring two inconseq. revisions which took place after this thread was opened. )And preparations of the new RFC is underway at the bottom of the same page.Lastly, when you self-admitted to have not reviewed my closure, why are you asking to set aside the close.Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 03:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is ridiculous. The RfC was very conclusive and properly closed. There is absolutely no need for another RfC of any kind. This is just filibuster and sabotage by a user who did not like the results of the RfC (SerpahimSystem) and has been raising hell and wasting huge amounts of the community's time with his relentless efforts (he's been at it since July[92]). Rather than a new RfC, a topic ban for SeraphimSystem would be more appropriate. Khirurg (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't like is editors not posting WP:RS for their theories and disorganized arguments - it is disrespectful to myself and other editors who abide by Wikipedia's norms and voluntarily give our time to improve articles. As an editor who spends as much time cleaning up citations as I do adding content, I rather resent attempts to place the blame on me here. I dont have a set or strong opinion on the democracy issue, but I do have a strong opinion on all editors being equally required to follow basic policies when making edits and maintaining a basic respect for one another by not expecting "special treatment" - the need to use WP:RS is what distinguishes t/p discussions from forum discussions. The arguments that were made in this RfC were not persuasive because most were disorganized, off topic and unsourced, and more appropriate for a forum. Like most editors who have the beat interest of this encyclopedia at heart I welcome good faith source based discussion - I don't think my reputation here is to attempt to impose my personal views on articles without WP:RS and it is not ok for that to happen in this closure under Ignore All Rules. At this point, the new RfC that is stayed on the t/p is better organized because it asks editors to clearly state support or opposition for each part of the sentence, where consensus is difficult to gauge for the individual parts in the first discussion. Setting Aside under Rob's proposal would only mean that the non-source based arguments made in the first RfC will not be given the weight of consensus in the new discussion, and I don't object to that. The hope is that editors will learn from this that it is important to do the work to source your arguments and respect our core policies, if you want them to be given weight by the community. Seraphim System(talk) 13:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I must have misread this diff, because it sure looks like those are RSs being presented by an editor in the discussion. While not all of them may be perfect for the article (and some may not be RSs), there do appear to be some presented. And I don't find the assertions of racism and other allegations to be helpful to see what actually happened here. Quite frankly, I am not seeing where the consenus on that talk page was out of line with the close. It was not a shining example of an RfC, but it wasn't horrendous either. The best way to approach having the RfC closure changed would be to drop the aspersions, drop the allegations, stop relitigating the actual topic of the RfC and address (concisely) the actual problems with the close as you see them. Right now, after reading this section and the talk page, I'm not seeing where how the closer judged the consensus on the talk page wrongly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The diff is of the discussion between myself and User:Icewhiz, and it is the ONLY source based discussion in the entire RfC. Read this way, the close is a supervote on a discussion between two editors, and the many non-source based and off topic comments don't count one iota towards consensus under WP:Consensus - telling me allegations of racism are not "helpful" is like telling a rape victim to keep her mouth shut because no one gives a damn. While it may be true, I think it is absolutely ABOMINABLE to allow editors to freely engage in a forum-like discussion and make negative comments about a controversial topic (consider religion as an analogy) and then to call that non-source based discussion "consensus" in violation of WP:Consensus - unsourced synthesis is not common sense - here is ow I know it is not common sense: every editor there posted a different unsourced personal theory that synthesized a set of unsourced facts and then applied it to reach a conclusion about secularism or democracy. For example, "Because the Armenian genocide happened Turkey is not a secular country" - this isn't the second grade. If there is no source for this, I should not even have to waste my time replying for it and the weight given to it in a consensus discussion should be ZERO. If you take all the comments like this out of the equation, the close is nothing more then a supervote on a dispute between two editors about WP:CRYSTAL. None of this can be remotely construed as common sense and there was no consensus on this page. I don't really care how it is resolved to protect the egos of all the editors involved, I only care that it is resolved without wasting too much more of my time. It is absolutely DISRESPECTFUL to say this to an editor who spends her time sincerely reflecting the content of WP:RS (and yes doing this does take up a lot of time, and frankly is not really worth it for a project that is not going to honor its own policies). Seraphim System(talk) 14:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ealdgyth and Jytdog above, the current/revised close is in line with the opinions and discussion presented in the RFC. You think its a supervote, almost no one agrees with you. Time to move on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, not to mention the confirmed sockpuppetry in the RfC. It's pretty difficult to respect a consensus one one account has already been linked to an abuse account on Turkey/Armenian genocide related articles. I'm not assuming anything bad, but under the circumstances it is difficult to assume good faith because the comments were all unsourced and pretty much what you would expect from abuse accounts in this topic area. I know User:Ealdgyth isn't really familiar with the full discussion and I don't think she's familiar with the topic. Should the RfC be set aside to allow the new RfC to proceed and hopefully produce a more coherent outcome? Yes, I think so. But its sometimes better to not continue to try to force a situation to work with people who you don't respect or who don't respect themselves or the project. The community inaction and denial of the obvious abuses of other editors and the placing blame on those volunteers is really unique to Wikipedia, and it's quite unsavory. I don't think denial is going to help save the project's integrity - it's already been banned by an entire nation. It may be time to wake up and the smell the ... roses, and think seriously about the future of the project and its credibility and integrity. But that's why it's great that Wikipedia is open source! These things happen - Stay positive! Seraphim System(talk) 14:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me give you a couple of tips. To most experienced English speakers, the primary school-level tactic of 'if you cant discredit the argument, discredit the person' should be avoided. Its easily ignorable and ultimately means people will listen to you less. In the above you disparage others, you dismiss Ealdgyth, you assume because people don't agree with you they are blaming or disrespecting you - respect is earned, and you don't earn it by blaming others for having different opinions to yourself and not agreeing with you. Oh and soapboxing about the decline of the project impresses no one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it impresses you or not is immaterial. I don't need to discredit the person, they have done enough to discredit themselves here. I'm entirely capable of reading and understanding policies, and I didn't have to go to law school to see that the comments were bigoted and entirely unsupported by sources. With regards to the decline of the project, currently American companies do need to think serious about their overseas strategies especially in countries like India and Turkey and China (and possibly Brazil.) This is not limited to Wikipedia, but it includes Wikipedia, the overseas game is weak. I was shocked to find out that WMF does not even have a chapter in these countries, especially China. Of course the problems in producing content on the ground start at the top and work their way down. Unfortunately, where these countries has failed so far is in creating meaningful alternatives - and getting Erdogan to ban Wikipedia was too easy. Hypocrisy and oppression aggravate the human spirit in equal measure, and equal conditions without the hypocrisy is, in modern philosophy, considered a net improvement. To the extent that something is not working, to see this and double down on it is foolish. This is a failure that will have truly significant impacts going into the future of the project, and I think I will follow the example set by other editors and just sort of quietly give up. Don't do me any favors, do what you think is right, I will do the same. Seraphim System(talk) 15:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Enough is enough.Ealdgyth is one of our most highly experienced and respected editors and statements like they have done enough to discredit themselves shall be avoided from any sphere(s) at all costs.Just drop the stick and don't dig your own grave.(Also, AFAIK, there exists a Wikimedia India chapter.See here.)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 15:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have worked with User:Ealdgyth and to her credit medieval British history is one of the most high quality topic areas in Wikipedia. It is a pleasure and a joy to edit there. However, I don't think she is particularly knowledgeable about this subject area, which is sensitive. I am offering this as friendly advice in the best interest of the project - how Western perspectives have effected the writing of Turkish history and politics in particular has been the subject of a large body of work. This particular area of Wikipedia is not well-maintained. I have always treated Ealdgyth with the respect that she has earned. The inability of the project to accurately represent narratives about "OTHER" cultures is a serious one. It is not limited to this RfC but I think it's important for editors to understand that Wikipedia is nothing more then what we make it. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say herem. Seraphim System(talk) 18:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally and sadly I think Vikipedi is one of the smallest sister projects with just over 500,000 articles. Surely part of the reason for this is the difficulty of the language. I am only one editor and the abuse in the topic area here on English Wikipedia is out of control, so there is not much I can do without support. They run a tight ship over on Vikipedi, but I appreciate how inaccessible the language is. My estimation of the omments and participation in this discussion is that the community seems largely uninterested in whether or not there is meaningful improvement and oversight w/r to Turkey related content. That is a choice. Like I said, I'm only one person. Seraphim System(talk) 18:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New Set of Comments
Comment - I may have concluded too quickly that the mess is the closer's fault. The fact that the RFC has been edited extensively makes it nearly impossible to review. An RFC should be left as it is closed after it is closed. Who started editing the RFC after it was closed? In any case, this is not the place to debate the original issues. I will go back through the tedious history of the editing. Either the RFC should be set aside, or the RFC should be restored. If there was sockpuppetry, the sockpuppets should be discounted and blocked. If the Original Poster of this thread was the editor who started the mucking with the RFC after it was closed, then I agree with the comment that a topic-ban is necessary. I see that multiple editors agree that the close was valid and was not a supervote. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if the closure is challenged at the closer's t/p by any party, the closer can and should try to improve the close, if there is any remote possibility and the request for clarification seems to be made in a good-faith.While, I initially was reluctant to address him (Seraphim, you really need to learn about concise-ing your arguments, keeping them to the immediate topic and addressing the core issues), I later found that the closure may be better suited with an additional directive on the post-RFC way-out.I accordingly added a paragraph to my closure statement and posted a note on his t/p informing him about the addition to my closure and whether he was interested in starting the next RFC on the topic (per my revised closure).The next response from him was to start this ANI thread and thus, it was this close that is being challenged here.Here, at ANI, I saw him stating repetitively that WP:COMMONSENSE (a point which was mentioned in my close) is an essay (i.e. not a policy/guideline) and since, IHO, I should not take individual decisions on disputes about validity of new-age-RS sources w.r.t to Brittanica et al between 2 editors(It's another case though, that somehow Seraphim thinks/feels that all the other editors who wish to discount his by-default-valid-sources-and-arguments have to take part in long-drawn arguments with him and whoever has chosen to not engage him shall be discounted) and hence my closure was plainly wrong.So, I decided to insert certain phrasings in my close, addressing his afore-said queries and retracted back a certain portion of my new paragraph, which seemed to be too over-imposing on the next scheduled RFC.And, none of these even minimally affected the substance of the close.Thus, frankly, I fail to see the RFC has been edited extensively and the answer to your next _____.Also, some parties may find the development of the new RFC, several sections below, at the same t/p, more interesting than this thread.Regards:) Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 15:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
commentIf this is the Turkey thread, I've fully protected the page for two days because of the ongoing edit war. Please let me know if a longer period is indicated.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no edit war on the page, unless the issue of Erdogan's full name or "Preaident" being used is some kind of long term trolling/abuse issue - in which case it is entirely unrelated to the subject of this thread. There has to be interest on both sides, and I don't know if Turkey has the interest (at this point, it doesn't really look like it.) Possibly ARBCOM involvement. Given the condition of the articles, I don't think it could hurt. But this is way above my pay grade. Seraphim System(talk) 19:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While an edit war is not actually ongoing (ignoring the 5 October 3RR incident with Seraphim), what we do have is Serpahim making this edit - 20:41, 10 October 2017 in which the government type is changed to Neocolonialism in the infobox only (so - article lead, article body disagrees with infobox) and without any sources. Following reversion (by myself), The following was posted to the talk page - 21:06, 10 October 2017 - without any sources to back up this statement. Note that this edit was made concurrently to challenging the close of the RfC in which Seraphim advocated - on the RfC and in ANI (in the comments above) that Turkey is a democracy (or Islamic democracy?) as well as criticism of lack or quality of sourcing by other editors - so we have concurrent arguing in one forum that Turkey should be described by Wikipedia as a democracy and that sourcing is important, and an edit to the Turkey article itself (a rather important main-space article, which did pass GA review - which typically means one should be extra careful regarding editing) (without any sources!) that changes the government type to neocolonialism - which is a term typically applied to regimes in post colonial Africa in the 60s+.Icewhiz (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway I'm sorry but I really can't talk about this anymore. The requirement to source content is basic. I haven't been editing much because I have things to do and I simply do not have the time to argue about something this simple. Regarding English language Wikipedia, if the consensus is to not use WP:RS and this meets the standards, then most likely the problem is that my personal academic standards integrity are too high. I wholeheartedly support any and all measures that are in the best interest of the project's future, and I deeply regret how much (of my) time this has taken up. Lol. Seraphim System(talk) 19:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On reading the history of the talk page several times, I apologize for implying that the closer made a mess of things, although it is a mess. The recent extensive reformatting of the RFC does make it harder to follow the history. It does appear that there was a rough consensus to remove the sentence, and that the close of the RFC in question should be Affirmed, and the second RFC can go forward. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ladies, Gentlemen...steel yourselves and let's get on with it. (I think this discussion can be closed.) Seraphim System(talk) 23:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of unblock civility restriction
User:Darkness Shines explicitly agreed to remain civil with other users as a condition of their account block being lifted in May 2017 (archive). This restriction was to last until 29 November, or 6 months (diff). However, recently the user has persistently made abusive, combative, and/or snide remarks on Talk:Patriot Prayer:
An anonymous user requested that Darkness Shines specifically strike that last comment (diff), which Darkness Shines has not done. I haven't included all the instances of gratuitous profanity by this user at Talk:Patriot Prayer either. I have made some edits to that article, and would like to contribute further, but Darkness Shines is single-handedly creating an atmosphere of hostility and stubbornness that makes constructive work on the page, including consensus-building, impossible.
User:K.e.coffman raised the issue of harassment at the user's talk page (diff), and User:Cyberpower678 also suggested they take a break from editing that page, apparently due to edit warring, not incivility
(diff). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC) (updated 17:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]
I have not been uncivil to anyone, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that we study and debate each occurrence in exhaustive detail to determine whether any admin action is justified. DarknessShines may have been in the right as to content, or they may have been provoked; in either case, the civility violations are forgiven. Also we need to discuss whether they are actually civility violations in the first place, since one man's incivility is another man's plain talk. We need to discuss the thickness of editor skins and whether mere words really do any harm. We need to look into the OP's entire editing history to decide whether they are acting in good faith, and possibly discuss a boomerang sanction. If some editors feel that other editors have misbehaved in this thread, we will need to discuss that, too. I estimate that all this will require at least 10 days of active debate, per due process. ―Mandruss☎ 17:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only 10 days? my, my aren't we optimistic? If i remember correctly, ArbCom was involved and that usually adds another week at least. Blackmane (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Darkness Shines is single-handedly creating an atmosphere of hostility and stubbornness that makes constructive work on the page, including consensus-building, impossible." I hate proving people wrong but.... wrongDarkness Shines (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Last two comments on User:Sangdeboeuf's talkpage: (1) A warning to self-revert after 4 reverts on said article. (2) A notice that they'd been reported to WP:AN3. If anyone's going to bring an ANI report here against Darkness Shines, it should be the editor that he has allegedly been incivil to (who is a SPA on that article and who has also been reported a number of times for edit-warring), not a fellow traveller. In fact, this should just be closed. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it should be the editor that he has allegedly been incivil to - Strongly disagree. If a concept of incivility actually exists at Wikipedia, it's an offense against many who read it, not only the target. Further, the target's motive in coming to ANI generally has more to do with emotion and personal interest (i.e. revenge) than community interest. ―Mandruss☎ 19:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Incivility is never an offense against one editor. It is always and everywhere an offense against the entire community because of the damage it does to the environment we all must work in. Further I would take issue with an earlier comment suggesting that being right in a content dispute somehow excuses incivility. It does not. However gross provocation can be a mitigating factor. All of which said I have not yet looked into the particulars of this case and am making no judgements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does not. If you're referring to my small comment, (1) I hope it was obvious that it was satirical in nature, and (2) perhaps you meant "it should not", and I would agree. In practice, it most certainly does. ―Mandruss☎ 20:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ack. Clearly I need to have my satire detector recalibrated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Come over to my talk page Bugs, I have a thick skin so try your best. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say stuff like you're saying to that one user, so by my standards, you're over the line. I would just like to know where you consider the line to be. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I had a rougher upbringing than yourself, read this when I'm reverted i expect the one who reverted to explain why, not to copypaste "This must be a misunderstand as there is no consensus on such a MAJOR change, please submit this change first to the TALK page to gain consensus before making such a major alteration to a page under neutrality dispute, thank you." Ten Fecking times without ever explaining why the work was reverted, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be daft Bugs, I'm perfectly civil as can be seen in myndealings with an UP in the section I linked. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I asked. I want to know if there is any specific statement you can think of which you would consider uncivil. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I call a spade a spade, not a shovel. I have not made a series of insults, troll is the only one. I have sought dispute resolution I have reported him, he broke 3RR on my fucking talk page for Christ's sake, since I created the article he created an account and does nothing but revert me, he is a SPA, and it is my opinion that he is trolling me. All anyone need do is look on the talk page of the article Darkness Shines (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've lived next to crack houses, so I'm not exactly the most sheltered person alive. I will say, though, that sometimes it's best to avoid labeling spades, shovels, and other gardening implements. There's a time and a place to spade-calling, and not every spade needs to be explicitly labeled as such. If you find the urge rising to start labeling spades, maybe you should find something to do that doesn't involve spades. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles, Callanecc, what do you two make of this? Your names appear in DS's block log. I'm of two minds. First of all, "fuck off" isn't really blockable, as was said above, in a different section, by a very wise and handsome administrator, but we got a lot of comments here and some of the f-words are used adjectivally, if you dig where I'm coming from. On the other hand, C.W Gilmore's commentary is somewhat exasperating and I do believe they violated an unblock condition; plus, they are pretty much an SPA. On the third hand, I can't help but think that DS is less than neutral here and some of the edits (or proposed edits) come pretty close to whitewashing. On the fourth hand, I don't know and I wonder if topic-banning both editors from this page would help. Perhaps you all have wisdom to spare. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was sort of my point, Drmies. When you're faced with the ridiculous SPA sealion-ing activities of CW Gilmore, it's not unsurprising that anyone would resort to language that may be regarded as incivil. Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's really not BB. Have a look at CW Gilmore's "contributions" to that talk page and tell me they wouldn't enrage anyone that's actually trying to improve it. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you meant not surprising. Tell you what, the first time I resort to language like that for any reason - nay, the first time that happens to me or any one of the many longtime editors who have earned my respect - I'll buy that reasoning. Until then I'll continue to see it as an excuse and editors who defend it as enablers of the excuse. I think that's a fair and reasonable approach. If Wikipedia provides no other way to deal with such problems (and I don't believe that's true), that's on Wikipedia and that's where the attention is needed, not in an endless succession of threads like this one. ―Mandruss☎ 23:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not excusing the language at all (and yes I meant "surprising"), but all I see is a long-term editor being faced by a SPA engaging in ridiculous commentary on the talk page and being enraged by it. In these situations, the easiest way to sort the problem out is to get rid of the SPA account, not the person that's actually trying to improve the article. That's just common sense. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wha? How does the language in question here get rid of the SPA account? It looks to me like you're excusing the language with your "tell me they wouldn't enrage anyone" and "not surprising" comments. ―Mandruss☎ 23:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my previous comment, I'm not excusing it, but it isn't surprising given the disruption the SPA account is causing. That's not too difficult a concept, surely? And the easiest way to "fix" the problem is to remove the SPA from the proceedings. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's "surprising" to me and many others. I don't know what else to say. The issue will be decided by a democratic vote of an almost infinitesimal fraction of the editing population, those who are nuts enough to visit this page and couldn't possibly be said to be representative of the whole. Been here, done this. See ya's. (For what it's worth, which I know is nothing at all, you have no policy/guideline support for your rationale, aside from the general purpose license to ignore any policy/guideline we disagree with.) ―Mandruss☎ 23:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do you get 1900 edits on one article talk page, and 1245 on another? I suppose that if you can handle talk pages in that way, C. W. Gilmore's article talk page work may not seem so...excessive, but for me, it does. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't disputed that they are an SPA. I'm taking people's word on that. ―Mandruss☎ 00:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who has unblocked Darkness Shines, I have been quietly monitoring Patriot Prayer. I can tell you for certain that what has been going on there would generate a level of frustration that even I may lose my cool with, if I were in his place. What I observe is Darkness Shines making mostly reasonable edits, and then getting shot down at every turn by Gilmore. Gilmore doesn't seem to get that this has become disruptive, and then makes massive amounts of reverts on that article. I clearly understood that Darkness Shines was beyond frustrated, and as an admin made the call to not block him and instead talk to him. As for Gilmore, the massive number of reverts was a reason to block alone. I made the condition that Gilmore stay away from the article as an unblock condition, though I wish he exercised common sense and left the talk page alone too as Darkness Shines did. At this point C. W. Gilmore needs to be topic banned from the article IMO.—CYBERPOWER(Message) 02:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to agree with Cyberpower above - DS brought to RSN a discussion about some content he wanted to include - which after looking at the article, he appears to have been unduly frustrated by editor/s there. I couldn't see any issue with either the source or the content and the arguments against it were mostly spurious. I can see why it would have wound him up. This is not an excuse for his language, but his editing is very far from whitewashing there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Topic ban enacted: there is plenty of consensus here, and editor is possibly lucky to not get indef-blocked. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Enough is enough, I think. A simple reading of the talk page for the article will see that CWG is prepared to argue anything to a ridiculous amount, including unsourced/poorly sourced material and original research. Effectively CWG has been reverting DS and othe editors with "you need consensus" when the actual edits they are reverting are generally supported by sources, whereas CWGs are not. For an example, see the "Big Government" section at the top of the current talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He argues what appears to be mainly with another editor, by whom he was reported 3 times at the edit warring board by the other editor, which concluded no violation in two instances (the other resulted in a page protection). It is unclear to me why he should be tbanned, the amount of comments as a reason for tban seems too far fetched. It is also unclear to me what exactly the issue is on that page, other than discussing a source (I only read 3 sections and fast read through this extensive talk page). Re BG section, CWG gave a link to his point. prokaryotes (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reading now above comment snippets, which seem that the user went too far with aggressive remarks. prokaryotes (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've read Talk:Patriot_Prayer#Big_government which Black Kite recommends as a representative sample of C.W. Gilmore's style of argument. Man, even having to read it is uncomfortable. I can't imagine the frustration of trying to "discuss" with CWG. I support the topic ban as proposed, and also a barnstar to Darkness Shines for keeping their temper as well as they did in that section. (I admit to not having read the entire talkpage. I only have one life.) Bishonen | talk 18:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Support as a distant second choice to just indef-blocking C. W. Gilmore for persistent disruption. Courcelles (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but after reading the above material I agree with Courcelles that an indef block for disruption would be appropriate. Also endorse the barnstar for DS. --Begoon 20:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Object -I have not been the cause of this, but reacted to the insistent POV pushing by Darkness Shines to rewrite the page to become less Pro-Trump and omit as much connection of the organization to white nationalists as possible. These major changes without consensus[93] are what I objected to and have been working hard to gain compliance, which DS has now been forced to do. This is why Darkness continually reports me to the Administrator so I will be blocked and DS will have a free hand to change the page at will. I suggest you speak to @Jorm:, @Somedifferentstuff:, @Tornado chaser: and @K.e.coffman: for their input as they are and will be most effected by my presence or absence. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest. I must say if I had acted on those edit warring reports at the edit warring noticeboard, the last two cases would have resulted in a block. As a matter of fact, I ended up blocking after the "No Violation" decision was posted there, unaware of the fact that you were reported there. For the latest report, I would have blocked you again. Edit warring on someone's own talk page is unacceptable.—CYBERPOWER(Message) 23:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also since the page you've been warring on is under ArbCom's discretionary sanctions, I was getting close to imposing a topic ban on you without discussion. Since we are here now, I'll let the thread play out and let the community decide if one is needed or not.—CYBERPOWER(Message) 23:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - But I'm inclined to agree with Courcelles that an indef block for disruption is probably a better option. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Questions When did it become a banning offense to talk things through thoroughly on the Talk page of an article? Is that not a reasonable way, of doing things? Asking DS to bring major changes to the Talk page. If fact why is DS's status brought up, just I?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the biggest problem is that the article is WP:UNDUE. It's not a "group", it's just one guy with a Facebook page who appears to be very good at baiting counter-protestors. I feel it should be merged to Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump or Joey Gibson (political activist). Not every protest is notable, and the default solution of creating a WP:UNDUE amount of content for both pro-Trump and anti-Trump protests leads to disputes like this, where the group has more adjectives than it does participants. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about having to list every rally, but it was the only way to prove to DS that the group really was Pro-Trump and usually included white nationalist among their numbers without having my posts deleted by DS and then being reported to Admin. I hope they can be consolidated and merged, but I feared that without those referenced sources, all pro-Trump and white nationalists references would be slowly minimized again as it was before. Though, is will not be my problem to deal with for a while or longer. Good luck.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal -Why don't I just step away from Patriot Prayer (all pages) for a month or two and let everyone else deal with it as they see fit. I'm done commenting on the Talk page or contributing to the article, have a good day.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I received multiple failed login attempts today, plus at least one password reset attempt. No big deal, I use a Password manager so I use a strong password on Wikipedia, one which I don't use elsewhere. Additionally, I use Multi-factor authentication, so even if you guess my password (and you won't; it's strong and random), you still wouldn't be able to log in. Given the multiple login attempts, though, should I take any additional steps? My Wikipedia account isn't at risk, but this is obviously a malicious user. --Yamla (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have been told that two-factor authentication is a great thing, and that I shouldn't have to worry about such attempts. I get them regularly after blocking a troll or a sock, and I believe my ArbCom colleagues get these notes quite regularly as well. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla:, this is most likely Virajmishra, you've declined some of the unblock requests from his socks, he's been trying to log in to my account and has even asked for password resets (the password reset emails log the IP, which is how I know it's him) and he's done that to JamesBWatson (a few sections above) too. Nothing much to do, I get the worst of his actions because I block the socks, and he does the same crap here and at Commons. —SpacemanSpiff 03:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I was wondering who it was. Yeap. Sounds good, thanks. --Yamla (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Original research at WTOL?
We have a potential edit war going on at WTOL; Klschepler keeps adding irrelevant information; he may have used original research. [94][95][96]Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just declined a request for page protection at RFPP. The only way an edit war can be going on is if you are participating. Has there been any attempt at resolving this on the article talk page? If so I'm not seeing it. Try engaging in conversation with the other editor before jumping to the noticeboards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Klschepler is clearly vandalizing the page; WTOL is not a 'low-power' station and is definitely licensed as a full-power station, and it seems like they're axe-grinding that they can't get the station where they live (WTOL transmits as a VHF station serving northwest Ohio and it's likely all they need is a better antenna). No need for a noticeboard on this one unless they continue; next edit should be a 3RR or AIV warning to the editor with action taken if they persist. Nate•(chatter) 02:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User proposing articles on black queer artists for deletion??
I am not sure how to deal with this, so I leave it to you all. I happened to notice that User GetSomeUtah has proposed three articles on black queer artists for deletion in the space of an hour. The articles all appear to be reasonably notable to me. I found great refs for some of them. I am reporting it here as it seems like way too much of a coincidence: all black, all artists, all queer. The articles are Lola Flash, Paul Sepuya and Shari Carpenter.104.163.152.238 (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mystery here. Everyone is welcome to look at my talk page to see what SuggestBot proposed needed work and then link that up with my contribution history. SuggestBot also alerted me to the weak entry for Bob O'Dekirk, whose one-sentence article I proposed for deletion. Is Mr. O'Dekirk black and queer? I don't know. I haven't been keeping track. I do know that so far members of the Wikipedia community have been voting to deleteShari Carpenter and Paul Sepuya (along with O'Dekirk, too), and anyone who has "great refs" is always welcome to put them to use in improving those articles. There's no need to wait until they're on the verge of deletion. The Carpenter article, in particular, was created by a student as a class project, according to the user talk page and the article's edit history. Mr. Sepuya looks like a serious artist, although his article needs help with reliable sourcing and notability. This is a case, again, where "great refs" will help. GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If "great refs" exist then WP:BEFORE should find them. AFAICT, "created by a student as a class project" is not a reason for deletion, but is a reason to follow WP:BITE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Black and/or queer artists are subject to exactly the same notability guidelines as everybody else. I've looked at the nominations (2xAfD, 1xPROD) and found no objectionable behavior, so WP:AGF is in full effect. I do not see any need for admin intervention. If you have great refs, please insert them into the article and leave a comment to that effect at the AfD. Kleuske (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This. I have not yet notified the editor, as I'd like some other opinions first as to whether there's anything to notify them about. General IzationTalk 14:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they aren't WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia for starters. Secondly, their actions look very much like someone who has had an account here for an extended period of time. They aren't new. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Well, I guess that settles that. Thanks, Dennis. General IzationTalk 15:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked him. The explanation is found on his talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, that was a necessary block, but I'm not comfortable with the reasons (which could be due to me parsing your wording too closely, in which case we probably agree more than I think). I mention it not to defend this troll, but because more and more i see us applying WP:NOTHERE as a block rationale in ways I don't think are right. The key needs to be not only that they are not building an encyclopedia, but they are hindering, in some way, other people's ability to do so. I guess WP:NOTFACEBOOK is needed just because, if we don't enforce it, it would open floodgates. But this is different. If this was a legit reporter, I really don't think WP:NOTHERE and WP:PAID would apply, and I think/hope you'd get some substantial pushback. In fact, I have a vague recollection that the WMF has allowed/invited researchers to create accounts to study something, rather than contribute articles. This block is good because this is some troll pretending to be a reporter (pro tip: actual reporters are happy to identify themselves, and are quite open about giving you an easy way to verify they are who they say they are, and aren't just trying to stir up disputes further). So I don't necessarily want to drag this thread out because ultimately it was a good block, but just want to plant the seed in the minds of people reading this thread that we need to be careful before using WP:NOTHERE as a rationale. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I pondered that as well, and had that been the only issue, I wouldn't have blocked. He is here to make money (lets assume he IS a reporter for now), however, and while this doesn't go against the letter of our policies on paid editing, it does go against the spirit as there was no disclosure. Is he really a reporter? I don't know. If he is and that is the only reason he is here, he needs to disclose. I'm also convinced this is an experienced editor, which is why I linked WP:SOCK, as this is likely either a banned editor, or an editor using a second account for reasons other than those listed in WP:SOCK (which I also linked). That alone is sufficient justification and I would have felt confident in making that block with other circumstances. Is he trolling? I think so, but that is harder to demonstrate, so I didn't touch on it. It was one of those weird blocks where it was a combination of factors, but in the end, they need to be blocked and the reasoning isn't so singular, so it is hard to articulate. With that in mind, I don't disagree with your assessment, but I also think you get my reasoning. And yes, WP:HERE is overused and sometimes dangerously so, we agree on that. He is here to promote his own self-interest however, which does fall under one of the NOTHERE categories. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of this. He showed up on my page after a WP:ANEW spat. I just told him "no" and ignored him. My guess is that he is some Wikipedia drama blogger or something stupid like that. Nihlus 22:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ThePromenader: I am not sure if it's related to the previous incident (I think this might be a editor contributing in good faith, but with strong Taiwanese POV), although there are too much similarities indeed. I've temporarily protected the page and left a note on the editor's talk page. Alex ShihTalk 07:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit hard to say for sure, isn't it? It might be part of a recent 'one-upmanship' POV trend I've seen through asian articles, which in itself is odd (and rather pointless). TP✎✓ 09:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rude edit messages by user with history of blocks (User:Moonsdebut8)
Message: "love it when dumb hoes cant read.. u will notice that I was gonna add sources, not you. it may not be my article but i still hold the power so u will respect it when u bring yo bum ass in or you will get reverted everytime.. learn it.. tata"
They have been blocked indefinitely by Ponyo. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a sock of MrWriter245 (talk·contribs). I don't remember MrWriter245 being so abusive in edit summaries before now, but the edits are a clear giveaway. Just ping me next time someone starts editing Teairra Marí disruptively. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My guess would be that it was an attempt to sound like the "sassy black woman" stereotype to create an entirely different tone from before, and perhaps to fall back on as a race-based defence in a dispute over Teairra Mari, who is an African-American woman. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nate Speed sock
Can an available admin please consider blocking IP 39.40.70.28? This is a sockpuppet of banned user Nate Speed (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nate Speed for background. The user is insistently leaving some very hateful messages at Talk:Paramount Pictures (see [98]); the style of of his message, the topic, the threat to create yet a new account to keep editing pages that have been semi-protected, and the use of the ridiculous "D:<" emoji strongly implies this is a duck. Thanks, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A wishful thinking guy named User:Maghasito deleted references and rewrote the Turanism article, just because he simply "does't like" the referenced content and he is a believer of pseudo scientific turanist ideas. The true believer guy also started an edit war. Can you restore the article and protect the page?
Thank you!--Filederchest (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've made no attempts to strike up a friendly conversation or discuss they matter with ANYONE outside this forum. What do you want anyone else to do here? You're perfectly capable of being friendly and trying to reach a reasonable compromise. If you can't be bothered to work it out, why should anyone else here care? --Jayron32 11:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will try, but as you can see on his talkpage he has never given any answers.--Filederchest (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maghasito has now been notified. I've also alerted User:Maghasito to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. Our article on Turanism say this was a nationalistic political movement, and since it relates to Eastern Europe it falls in the domain of the EE case. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is the right place to raise this. I seem to have been affected by a very strange bug; when I try to edit any page, a load of extraneous text is automatically added to the end of the page or section I am editing. Reverting my edit does not remove this; I have to specifically restore the previous edit. For an example of what is happening, see this history page. I last made a good edit at 11.41 today, by 13.09 this had appeared. Is this specific to my account, or is there a more general problem? And if it is specific to me, how can I resolve it?
I apologise if this edit also throws up a ton of nonsense! RolandR (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does this only happen on Wikipedia? Looks like you've got some malware on your machine that's inserting that into text fields or the like. Canterbury Tailtalk 12:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if you're including the blacklist in your commons.js. More specifically, I suspect "importScript('User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js'); //Linkback: User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js Added by Script installer" may be the culprit. In that case, it's not a bug, it's a feature. Kleuske (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand that last comment. And I have not edited my js page today, so some other factor must be involved here. RolandR (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed that script, but it clearly has not resolved the problem. The bug did not appear on my js page. Nor does it seem to appear on other sites. And I'm sorry, I am unable to delete all of this rubbish. As it stands, I am currently unable to edit Wikipedia, and this is caused ny something that happened - without any action by me - between 11.41 and 13.09 BST today. RolandR (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nah... It's probably not that script. Somehow your browser imports some javascript and i'm looking for it;s source. Since the script is affecting other people on other platforms, it's probably not a Wikipedia problem. You may have some malware on board, as suggested earlier. Kleuske (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of minutes in DuckDuckGo suggests the script is associated with a Chrome extension called Poper Blocker. If you've got that installed, reinstall it (or switch to uBlock Origin). MER-C 13:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Malware/adware does seem plausible given the first few links on the page (specifically the adult ones usually associated with such spyware). Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've uninstalled Poper Blocker, and that seems to have resolved the problem. Now to check what happens when I reinstall... RolandR (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstalled, and the problem does not recur. Presumably some bug or malware got in to the Poper Blocker script. Ayt least thst's resolved now, thanks for your help. Now to get back to my attempted edits on Marsha de Cordova. RolandR (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
II spoke too soon. The bug did not affect this page, but as soon as I tried to edit elsewhere it reappeared. I've now rtemoved Poper Blocker, and can edit properly. But I can't find anything online about this bug; where did you find details, MER-C? RolandR (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to lift autoblocks
Eruditescholar (talk·contribs) is asking that an autoblock be lifted. In this particular case, it appears appropriate to lift the autoblock. Only... I can't. Look, it's possible I haven't had enough coffee this morning and am doing something stupid. But I've been lifting autoblocks for literally years here. What changed? --Yamla (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also tried lifting the autoblock without success, and the error is that the autoblock number isn't a valid username or IP address. This sounds like a bug related to the recent conversion of the block and unblock interfaces to OOUI. I suggest moving this question to WP:VPT. —DoRD (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The autoblock number is 7892601 and yeap, it appears on that page. I'll go notify VPT. --Yamla (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would WP:IPBE be a stop-gap measure until we can get the bug fixed? --Jayron32 13:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the block on the account causing the autoblock (per EdJohnston's suggestion), which cleared this autoblock, but there was a recent change to the software that causes it to reject autoblock numbers. A bug report has been filed and a fix is on the way. —DoRD (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Editor not engaging at talk pages
I have recently come into conflict with Planonasus(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) at the article Etmopterus(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and both myself and user Elmidae have been unsuccessful at beginning a conversation at the article's talk page via edit summaries and pinging at the talk page. I have not posted on this user's talk page because it seems that their only edits to talk pages are moves (see here), and they have not ever responded to anyone or participated in a discussion even on their own talk page. Planonasus brings much knowledge about a niche area to the project, but is apparently unable to engage the community and has proven themselves quite difficult to work with.
To begin this particular conflict, I reverted and then undid that reversion of their original edit to Etmopterus because I thought that they had removed Elmidae's recently added content. I realized after my reversion that they had not, but did remove a reference, an entry in a list, and the See also section without any explanation. I then made some copyedits, added back the list entry and the removed reference, and made more content changes. Planonasus reverted all of these edits without using an edit summary and, after prompting from Elmidae, has reverted all of these changes three more times while (I assume?) only contesting the list item. (See "Etmopterus baxteri is a junior synonym of E. granulosus." in edit summary but no comment on the lead copyedit, etc.) I can only wonder if they are simply unaware these other changes are being made (in addition to the species in the list) by their persistent reverting.
I cannot engage in a content dispute via edit summaries, so I am bringing this here as the user is either unaware that talk pages exist, despite the notification system and possible emails, or is unwilling to edit them. I would also like to point out that Planonasus' edit summary usage for recent major edits is 40% despite being told about this in March 2016 (and again later that month, and also in March 2017); they have continued to not follow WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA after being made aware of it (1, one year later, and 2, two years later); were first blocked for disruptive editing, and again for 3 months after continuing to make cut and paste moves (see block log); and have continued to rely on primary sources for changes to taxa despite being told about secondary and tertiary sources last year. – Rhinopias (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The user is also habitually removing citation templates and references (amidst useful edits), despite being alerted to that being nonconstructive, perhaps most recently in February 2016. The practice continues, for example here for Atractoscion and for Schistura. The user is not necessarily engaging in edit wars but continues with similar nonconstructive edits elsewhere. Micromesistius (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the malfunction here is pretty apparent. Planonasus has never edited a user talk page, and never made a comment on an article talk page. I completely understand the frustration you feel in dealing with him/her. Part of being WP:HERE is editing collaboratively—if you can't play nice with others, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. As you note above, the user has been blocked again and again for years with editors begging Planonasus to interact with them, to no avail.
What I am going to do is block Planonasus, just to get their attention. I will lift the block immediately as soon as they reply to my talk page message, and hopefully I will extract a pledge to start cooperating with other editors. ATraintalk 19:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) ::Possibly my only comment because I'm travelling and this tablet is sapping my will to live... Planonasus does indeed seem to have substantial subject knowledge but their uncooperative behaviour is a problem. The noted situation at Etmopterus illustrates the complete unwillingness to use article talk pages, nothing on their own talk page ever gets answered, acknowledged or sorted out, and there seems to be a general lack of understanding of other's concerns about sourcing and sweeping unexplained deletions/moves. They don't engage in extended edit wars, but neither do they ever help to resolve a situation. Probably not actually sanction-worthy, so I'm not sure what can be done at this point, but a nuisance and likely to blow up at some point. I'd certainly like to see some input from them here. - I see an attention-getter block is in the offing, thanks. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All right, Planonasus has been blocked and I have explained on their talk page that the restriction will be lifted as soon as they agree to start editing collaboratively. Let's see how we get on. ATraintalk 19:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think blocking indefintiely was correct, especially given prior blocks (one from me) for similar disruptive editing. I suppose that if Planonasus agrees to start editing collaboratively it is fine to unblock, but despite their knowledge I don't think we should wait long before reblocking if disruptive behavior resumes. Rlendog (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I look forward to their collaboration if they attempt to do so. – Rhinopias (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Planonasus does seem to have stopped removing parentheses from taxonomic authorities, which was what led to their being blocked in 2014. There is some evidence that they can change their behavior. However, while they do seem to be knowledgeable about shark taxonomy, it's concerning that they weren't getting parentheses right in the first place. Taxonomy is a niche field with many arcane rules, but parentheses usage is pretty basic. Plantdrew (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, I present Planonasus's first talk page edit ever. The user has been duly unblocked. Please keep me and ANI posted on how they get on from here. ATraintalk 21:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(non-admin closure) OP indef blocked by Bishonen, for persistent disruptive editing, with the candlestick, in the library. ―Mandruss☎ 19:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
EdJohnston warn me to block me without proper justification.. I am a research scholar of Anthropology,history and sociology and law and governance of reputed institute. I want to contribute to wikipedia articles with proper historic evidences and reliable resources.butEdJohnston warn me to block me without any proof which is the violation of wikipedia editing policies.so,please protect me so that i can conribute to wikipedia with more accurate ,reliable sources . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biswajeet34 (talk • contribs)
If anything, EdJohnston was very accommodating of you. You have not taken on board any of the feedback given to you so far and show no interest in doing so, even here. —SpacemanSpiff 17:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For background, see the back-and-forth at Biswajeet34. (I'm llnking to a version that was before they started removing a lot of warnings, so you can see the warnings). I'm also leaving a ping for User:WilliamThweatt who is the experienced contributor who was trying to make improvements at the article on Ho people, but ran into puzzling opposition from Biswajeet34 there. This led to William filing a complaint at the 3RR board. Based on further study after the 3RR closure, and the editor's failure to respond to warnings on their talk page, I now believe that a WP:CIR block of Biswajeet34 should be considered. As a response to one of the 3RR warnings, Biswajeet34 stated "Please edit Ho Tribe wikipedia by accurate,reliable sources with proper history,anthropology knowledges.please donot vandalise the Ho tribe wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biswajeet34 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)". I suggest that this editor's mastery of English may not be sufficient to get him through editing disagreements here, especially when he seems to advance his POV so vigorously and seems not to be listening to advice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked indefinitely by Bishonen. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was writing that but got an edit conflict. I listed several urls on EdJohnston's talk page where the editor removed any mention of Hindi or Hindu. A very clear agenda. Doug Wellertalk 18:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Polemic removed, user final-warned. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its interesting to note that some of the users last edits he mentions are before Gablescar first edit so its not clear how he knows about them--Shrike (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Self proclaimed possible sock?
New OS system recently acknowledged (few hours ago from now) that he has multiple accounts. But he has only one edit visible in his history. Not sure which are the other accounts, or if they are legitimate alternate accounts. It is not suitable for SPI, so I am bringing it up here. Regards. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've run across this user before, but stopped trying because beyond a few users who have caught on, there isn't much will or effort to stop it. The pattern is this: The user tag-teams various articles with registered users and IP addresses, mostly 98.xxx whatever, and IPv6 ones starting with 2602/6. Look through the articles the above accounts have edited and you will see the same pattern. The sockmaster relies on nobody being able to verify the info they add to articles, but they still add legitimate edits amongst their vandalism to complicate matters for anyone who catches on. Anyone who wants to waste time trying to combat this vandal, my suggestion is to revert any and all of their edits. Eik Corell (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to speak for Ad Orientem, but I believe what his terse response was telling you is that complex behavioral issues such as sockpuppetry and coordinated attacks by multiple people may not be entirely appropriate for WP:AIV, which is designed for more quick, no-investigation-necessary vandalism issues. As soon as it requires someone to look deeper into a problem to investigate more complex issues, AIV really isn't the best place. ANI or another board is more appropriate. That's why I think he recommended this come here. --Jayron32 22:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mandruss, talk: Opened an article talk discussion. Presented the case fully, in case Glrx was not aware of the history of the comma-before-Jr issue.[101]
4. Mandruss, article: Reverted, "there is no WP:JR case for this comma, see talk page".[102]
5. Glrx, article: Reverted, "refs use the comma".[103]
6. Mandruss, talk: "Please show me in WP:JR where it says that the only sources that matter are those used in refs."[104]
7. Glrx, talk: Falsely claims that I "acknowledged" that I am "a long-term MOS warrior on an inflexible campaign." Continues with argument that bears no connection with the guideline or the underlying community consensus. "You are also not waiting for others to comment here."[105]
8. Mandruss, talk: Lengthy rebuttal. "I will wait for other input, but I figured there wouldn't be any at such a low-vis article."[106]
[10 days pass. During this time I decided that, although Glrx had no case and was being tenditious about it, I would take the issue to WP:DRN if necessary, instead of this page. I spent about an hour putting together that post on my computer.]
9. Mandruss, talk: (with ping) "I think 10 days is long enough to wait for more participation. Regardless, after reflection I doubt I would defer to a local consensus in this case anyway, per WP:CONLEVEL. Are you still adamantly opposed to this edit?"[107]
[4 days pass, during which time Glrx is seen performing 19 edits to other pages, in some 4 editing sessions.]
10. Mandruss, talk: "Given their editing activity since my above ping, I can only assume that Glrx has withdrawn from this discussion. That ends the BRD process and I'm reinstating my edit."[108]
11. Mandruss, article: Revert, "remove comma again per WP:JR - the challenger has dropped out - see talk for details"[109]
12. Glrx, article: Revert, "no consensus on talk page. IEEE sources use comma"[110]
Can't be bothered to answer a simple inquiry in talk, but has the time to revert once again, again with no connection to the guideline or the underlying community consensus. At this point I abandoned the intent to go to DRN, as the DE/TE couldn't be any clearer.
The disputed edit is no different from the literally thousands of comma-removing edits and article moves that have come before it during the past ~18 months, by far more editors than me, including many technical moves performed by admins, and I made this abundantly clear to Glrx. This is an issue that has long been settled, I thought everybody had moved on, but it appears there is still at least one Japanese holdout hiding out in a cave in the Philippines, refusing to accept that the war is over.
Requesting a short block or TBAN from the article so I can get this done. Thank you. ―Mandruss☎ 23:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a compromise, the community decided that the comma can be used in cases...(2) all reliable sources include the comma. That's all, not most.
I see no mention of this nor the word "all" in either WP:JR/SR or MOS:JR. --Calton | Talk 23:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It says "clearly and consistently." Consistently implies all. More importantly, that interpretation of the guideline has been consistently upheld in move discussions. To my knowledge not a single article about an actual person has cleared the bar, according to those consensuses. The "case law" is compelling. ―Mandruss☎ 23:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a special noticeboard for MOS warriors to report content builders. Then everyone else could get on with life without fighting over a comma. Suppose the OP is right—is that the most pressing issue currently facing Wikipedia? Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's really annoying when you can't reach on agreement on comma placement, and the best thing is to work on different articles for a while instead of continuing to argue over what is basically a style preference that is unlikely to attract community involvement. (Sorry, I know it feels really important now, but out of sight is out of mind and it will pass.) Seraphim System(talk) 23:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be cluttering this thread with responses to comments like the above. Either people respect consensus and process, regardless of the magnitude of the disputed edit, or they don't. I'm unlikely to change these people's mind-sets. If more of them happen to show up here than the other ilk, I have wasted my time here and so be it. ―Mandruss☎ 23:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that generally non-responsiveness on talk is a fair reason to restore an edit, but I don't think AN/I is the right forum for this type of problem. If this is really important to you, maybe wait a while longer then 4 days and don't continue the dispute by calling the editor out in the edit summary. I think they will move on eventually, right? Seraphim System(talk) 23:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Failure to respect clear consensus is disruptive editing. This is the venue for disruptive editing. I have no idea whether they will move on eventually. Clearly they have the article watchlisted, and clearly they care a lot about that comma, so my guess would be that they are not going to just move on. ―Mandruss☎ 00:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-- There'sNoTime (to explain) 21:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'd just copy and paste the whole report to a new thread at ANI. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
