Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
| Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
|---|
|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. 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) |
Repetitive accusations of antisemitism and homophobia, and threats and personal attacks by XIIIfromTokyo
Summary of the request
Because of an original content dispute, XIIIfromTokyo has artificially created a discussion on antisemitism, and another one on homophobia, and has blatantly deformed my answers to say I am antisemitic and homophobic, and is repetiting these claims since December 2016 and on different pages in spite of my defense and other contributors' intervention. On top of that, he is doing intimidation, by telling me the press could talk about this and with legal threats to we do not know who. When I try to alert about this, he is changing the subject into a content dispute (talking about the content dispute, the French wikipedia article he wrote, his disputes there, comparison between articles, etc.), even though the content disputes are irrelevant here. When I try to tell him to stop calling me these things and threatening me, he is talking about the articles, and when I try to talk about the articles, he answers with these attacks. And he persists in this attitude in spite of all the warnings.
The content of the articles are off-topic here, but I worked on multiple articles and XIII – who has a tendency to paranoia (sorry for the use of the term) – is focusing on two of them to try to show a imaginary bias (even though I have been discussing with other editors on articles, and we managed to have consensus; these two articles were different and needed different answers, as talk pages and administrators decisions show), is doing every personal attacks to fulfill his imaginary purpose. He has been obviously wrongfully accusing me of antisemitism and homophobia, and attacking and threatening me for 10 months in talk pages. I do not feel safe contributing because these long-going attacks are very hurtful, they have been going on for a long time in spite of every call to stop and they will continue unless the user is banned.
--Launebee (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Detailed request and quotes
Dear administrators,
XIIIfromTOKYO has been accusing me of antisemitism, homophobia a bit everywhere since last year, and I cannot use a talk page without him going back to these outragious accusations. On top of that, he has been threatening me and constantly using an aggressive language.
ACCUSATIONS OF ANTISEMITISM
Original context
The first student association of Panthéon-Assas University is – at least on Facebook – a Jewish association, UEJF (Union des Étudiants Juifs de France) Assas. Because of that, someone tagged the door of this association office inside the university with a swastika, and the university and the student association asked the public prosecutor to bring charges.
XIII seems to have something against this university, so he is behaving aggressively to change the article, and another institution (this time in favor of it) because he considers they are rivals.
Among many misuse of sources, he gave many articles which related the swastika incident, and others (policemen had been put in the 1990s to protect the university from violent groups, like other Parisian universities). He was saying that it shows that the university has a tradition of antisemitism and racism and of beating (ratonnade) Jews and foreigners! I kindly explained, and wrote in particular: "What you are quoting (some fights sometimes near the university) is not at all what you are saying, ie foreigners and Jews being commonly beaten up in PA (ratonnades) or PA as an institution having or having the reputation to have an enduring tradition of racism and antisemitism!"[1] He was talking of beating people out of racism and antisemitism, so I said that it is absolutely false that foreigners and Jews are beaten up in one of the top institutions of France.
Accusation 1
He deformed what I said and answered:
Copy/pasted quoting
|
|---|
|
I explained that I obviously did not write that, but he is continuing since then to write on different pages I intervene that I wrote anti-Semitic things, or to imply I am a neo-nazi, so that I continuously have to defend myself, and so that the wrong is already done with other users.
Accusation 2 [2]
Copy/pasted quoting
|
|---|
|
Accusation 3 [3]
Copy/pasted quoting
|
|---|
|
Accusation 4 [4]
Copy/pasted quoting
|
|---|
|
Accusation 5 [5]
Copy/pasted quoting
|
|---|
I have read with some supprise that, according to Launebee, this university . Is that again your point of view about jew students, or do you have serious references about that ? Needless to say that after your previous statement, and your rewritting of the article of a well-know "néo-nazi" association[6], you might need to start to carefully chose the words you use. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC) I already gave you the reference. It is simply the first student association on Facebook. Please stop these continuing outrageous accusations. --Launebee (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
|
Accusation 6 [7]
Copy/pasted quoting
|
|---|
It is not something written in the article. I was just answering you, since you implied outrageous things. Stop this disruptive activity. --Launebee (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC) |
ACCUSATIONS OF HOMOPHOBIA
The same system: he transformed something, put it everywhere so I constantly have to defend myself of this accusation.
Original context
Richard Descoings died in mysterious circumstances. He was homosexual and married, and it was controversial. Many newspapers, including gay community newspapers, talked about it.[8][9][10][11][12]) I used in the Sciences Po article the wording used in his article at that time [13], ie that he had a "controversial gay lifestyle", and for example anti-homophobic articles say it was, but it should not be. It was the beginning of constant accusations of homophobia by XIIIfromTokyo.
Accusation 1 [14]
Copy/pasted quoting
|
|---|
|
Accusation 2 [15]
Copy/pasted quoting
|
|---|
|
XIII never stroke his comment or answered this.
One resistant during WW2 accused Sciences Po to have been a place of Collaboration during WW2.
With no link, an article from the Independant says that the system in which is Sciences Po is a machine to produce a "blinkered, often arrogant and frequently incompetent ruling freemasonry".
XIII mixed these things, as such:
Copy/pasted quoting
|
|---|
|
Copy/pasted quoting
|
|---|
|
As I have already mentioned, when I saw that this school was targeted because it was the lair "nazi" and linked to "freemasonry", but was also ruled by a "gay" "junky" who used to hire toyboys... well. Time for the arbcom to work ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC) |
Accusation 3 [18]
Copy/pasted quoting
|
|---|
|
THREATS
XIII wants me to stop editing, otherwise he is implying he could create a media turmoil with what he accused me in talk pages. Sometimes in French so that other users cannot understand.
Threat 1 [21]
Copy/pasted quoting
|
|---|
|
All the process is public, so your actions here […] will be available to anyone. Contributors, journalists... XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC) |
Threat 2 [22]
Copy/pasted quoting
|
|---|
|
Tu es bien conscient que tout es public, et que n'importe qui peut poster ça sur Twitter […] (avec tout le basard médiatique à prévoir vu certaines expressions utilisées en PDD ) ? |
Translation: You are well aware that everything is public, and that anyone can post in on Twitter […] (with all the media fuss to come due to some expression used in talk page (PDD = page de discussion).
Those "expressions used" are obviously from him.
Threats 3 and 4: legal threats [23][24]
These threats are not necessarily directed to me, but I signal that, as EdJohnston pointed out[25], XIII is doing legal threats now, by calling someone - so potentially anyone who disagrees with him - a "criminal".
Copy/pasted quoting
|
|---|
|
Copy/pasted quoting
|
|---|
Your reference to 'criminal' behavior above sounds to me like making legal threats. You were previously blocked for edit warring in April 2017 which should have made you aware of the sort of behavior we consider problematic. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC) |
CONSTANT ABUSIVE AND AGRESSIVE LANGUAGE
XIII has very often an abusive language toward me. I have been answering his repetitive personal attacks and repetitive arguments for more than a year, but even if I keep civil, he always turns it into personal attacks. I give just two examples among many.
Example 1: abusive language[26]
Copy/pasted quoting
|
|---|
|
[…] It is off-topic. We are talking about reputation here, and since the source was in French, I just explained. --Launebee (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC) […] You are lying to an other contributor just to try to gain some time. It's relevant because it shows that you know that you are lying when you write this article. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC) |
Example 2: repetitive claim I did a legal threat [27] [28]
Because I was discussing the fact saying PA has an racist tradition is libelous, which is not a legal threat according to Wikipedia policy ("A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat."[29] He has been reminded it is not a legal threat by other contributors but he continues to claim everywhere I did legal threat.
Copy/pasted quoting
|
|---|
|
Copy/pasted quoting
|
|---|
|
There are many examples.
GENERAL
This attitude does not seem to be new. XIIIfromTokyo has already been blocked in French Wikipedia three days for "personal attacks and insults" and two weeks for "intimidation attempt or harassment". [30]
There already has been requests here, but discussions were blurred in content discussion over Panthéon-Assas University and Sciences Po. Now, PA article has many sources, and Mr rnddude helped resolve the issues, and there has been a consensus on the lead of Sciences Po, with Robminchin helping. But XIII accusations are continuing, and it is becoming worse and worse.
Whatever the content dispute is, XIII is constant me insulting me by asserting or strongly implying that I am linked to antisemitism or neo-nazism.
I request a one-year ban will be decided (and a total ban if he does not apologise).
Regards,
--Launebee (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
- Purely for the administrative purpose of being able to parse out and read this thread (and hopefully to avoid some serious TLDR) I have removed all of the quotes, replacing them either the relevant diffs or links. I have also removed the silly number of subheaders. I took every effort to not actually remove any content added by Launebee. If someone feels this decision was improper they are welcome to replace it with the original content, which can be found here. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- I kept the subheaders removed, but put back the quotes, because the sentences are to be found inside long texts, so specific quotes are needed. Your version without the quotes is to found here. Thanks for your help. --Launebee (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but I've collapsed the quotes, since that's kind of the point of a collapse template. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- If you want to point out the text, you could use the tq template. The tq template highlights quoted text in green, and looks like this:
(text being quoted)
. This might be a better alternative to hatted boxes. Blackmane (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)- Thank you Primefac and Blackmane. Perhaps now is a good compromise, and I hope I will never have again to do this, but if I have to use quotes in the future I will think at the tq templates. I am sorry there are so many examples, but it is because I have been so many times attacked. I added a summary in the beginning, it seems it was needed. --Launebee (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I kept the subheaders removed, but put back the quotes, because the sentences are to be found inside long texts, so specific quotes are needed. Your version without the quotes is to found here. Thanks for your help. --Launebee (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Noting that the reported user has been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring on the aforementioned article. ansh666 21:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- When a user has been advised repeatedly that he is making false accusations, and yet persists in repeating the accusations, we have a problem. The subject of this complaint hasn't made many contributions, but he has exacted long-term abuse against a good faith editor. Frankly, I don't see a convincing reason why we need to retain this editor as a member of our community. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Lepricavark: Is there something I can do to get this going somewhere? Otherwise, the harassment and threats will continue. --Launebee (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know. I suspect people have been put off by the sheer size of your original post, which far exceeds the usual length. I do hope, however, that a couple of admins would be willing to take a look at this and determine what action should be taken. Lepricavark (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Lepricavark: Ok, I put more clearly that there is a summary above. Thanks. --Launebee (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know. I suspect people have been put off by the sheer size of your original post, which far exceeds the usual length. I do hope, however, that a couple of admins would be willing to take a look at this and determine what action should be taken. Lepricavark (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Lepricavark: Is there something I can do to get this going somewhere? Otherwise, the harassment and threats will continue. --Launebee (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- To attempt to summarize the content: the ancient University of Paris ("The Sorbonne") was dissolved into smaller universities in 1970. Panthéon-Assas University was created as a successor school that included the law faculty. There appear to be multiple content disputes between the two editors discussed on the talk page. The fr:Université_Panthéon-Assas article may be useful as a reference. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- @power~enwiki: Thanks for your help. Actually, the summary of my message is more that because of a content dispute, XIII created a discussion on antisemitism and then used my answer to claim antisemitism, and has repeated these claims since last December, that he did the same thing with homophobia, that he has been threatening me several times and is constantly aggressive. The content dispute is not relevant here, whatever it is, it has been ten months that I am repetitively wrongfully accused of these things by this user, even though it is obviously absolutely false. (Note also that this user is the principal writer of the French page of that university, so this is not a reference. XIII is precisely blurring the discussion by talking of what happens in the French page that he wrote, or of the content dispute, but all of that is irrelevant. This is a different subject with a talk page, but that talk page is now filled with personal attacks.) I added a summary in the beginning of the request, thanks for the idea. --Launebee (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki: Sorry to ask, but could an admin intervene? --Launebee (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, and I don't think any administrative action (other than an formal warning as part of a close here) is necessary at this time. The solution to the personal dispute is to have additional editors on that page; @ARBN19: has previously edited this page a significant amount and possibly could comment. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki: Sorry to ask, but could an admin intervene? --Launebee (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- @power~enwiki: Thanks for your help. Actually, the summary of my message is more that because of a content dispute, XIII created a discussion on antisemitism and then used my answer to claim antisemitism, and has repeated these claims since last December, that he did the same thing with homophobia, that he has been threatening me several times and is constantly aggressive. The content dispute is not relevant here, whatever it is, it has been ten months that I am repetitively wrongfully accused of these things by this user, even though it is obviously absolutely false. (Note also that this user is the principal writer of the French page of that university, so this is not a reference. XIII is precisely blurring the discussion by talking of what happens in the French page that he wrote, or of the content dispute, but all of that is irrelevant. This is a different subject with a talk page, but that talk page is now filled with personal attacks.) I added a summary in the beginning of the request, thanks for the idea. --Launebee (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- C.Fred, Amire80, Ocaasi : could you do something here? Otherwise the abuse will continue. Thanks. --Launebee (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- User:Launebee, I'm not sure why are you asking me, because I rarely handle ANI stuff, and I am more involved in technical things.
- In any case, User:XIIIfromTOKYO hasn't edited for the last 10 days, and hasn't written anything in their defense here, so there isn't much that I can do at the moment. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Amire80: Sorry for the delay, but I have a lot of work these days. I can only notice that @Launebee: has failed to provide a single edit where I actually accuse him/her of antisemitism. S/he has clearly been playing with fire on that touchy issue ; What it on purpose ? As anyone can see in this very recent edit, s/he is making a reference to a "strong jewish community" and "racism", but the edit has nothing to do with that : s/he is only removing (again) warning templates. So I think it's only a new strategy to block any serious work on the article.
- I have started to collect edits, but the issue is more important than what I have previously thought. Launebee as been asked repeatedly to clarify his/her position toward COI, but has always refused to do so. It's clearly time for him/her to clearly state his/her link with that school. I must insist on that point, because it will be crucial for the remaining of the discussion. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Amire80: You were in the admin list.
- As you can see, XIII, not only is not seeing anything wrong in all what he wrote to me during the last 11 months, but is saying that I talk about Jews out of nowhere, once again clearly twisting the facts. As he knows very well, the edit he is referring to was removing a banner that he had included in the penultimate edit, with an ever-lasting accusation of antisemitism (to a university where the Jewish student association is the first association of this university on Facebook!). I obviously used the word "strong" in the sense of important, like in the talk page. Afterwards, he right away created a section [31] in the talk page implying I am a neo-nazi, when I quoted myself to answer again to his accusation, he jumped on the accusation of homophobia (last quotes of the relevant sections of my request). --Launebee (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- To clarify, you're only objecting to the commit message, not any of the content diffs? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
An admin may need to strike the commit messages at Special:Diff/800447263 and Special:Diff/800448084. I support closing this with a warning and no further action once that is done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki: Thank you, but I do not understand very well your question. XIII was here saying that I talked about Jews out of nowhere, and I objected that it was an answer to the edit summaries he did right before.
- Lepricavark You were in favor of a ban, am I right? power~enwiki: Don't you think this long-term abuse against me merits such a ban? --Launebee (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- I have better things to do on vacation than to straighten all of this out. The dispute has been going on at the talk page for 18 months and on pages relating to several French universities. The worst diffs (in Talk:Panthéon-Assas_University#Controversies_.3F) are almost a year old and I don't believe they justify a block now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki: Thanks for you time then. You are totally right, the old diffs alone don't justify a block, but it has been continuing meanwhile until now, and the last attacks – when it is implied I am a neo-nazi – are in September, I made the request right afterwards. --Launebee (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Launebee, I know you've provided a lot of links and quotes above, but could you provide simple diffs to these last attacks? That would help me to get a handle on this in a reasonable time. Give only the examples that you think imply that you are a neo-nazi. It's not necessary to quote the text, just the diff is fine. TIA Andrewa (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Andrewa: OK, sorry! The last attacks are from mid-September, right before I made this request. There were, only in September:
- statements strongly implying I am a neonazi [32][33] (message put twice in talk page, and let as such before I removed the second one) He talked a lot about an association I know little of, so, long time ago, I looked at the page, and there were very serious allegations made with no source, I removed them because there was a huge risk of libelous statement, XIII ended up implying everywhere I have a link with or I a from that association.
- statement strongly implying I have a bad opinion about the Jewish community [34], even though I just said they are important in that university and provided – once again (because he has been accusing me of those things for very long) – links to show that (and that it explained the anti-Semitic attacks against that university).
- statement that I wrote something wrong regarding the homosexuality of somebody [35], even though I provided links to anti-homophobic articles and homosexual community newspapers supporting the very old statement he was twisting.
- legal threats (EdJohnson qualified them as such [36]) against someone, but in a context of a dispute I was involved in. [37][38]
- Hoping this answers well your request. --Launebee (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- It answers it, but not at all well. Others have commented above that your posts are too long to be helpful. We are volunteers here with finite time to waste on your essays. This post does provide the diffs I asked for, but also meanders off into other issues, which I explicitly asked you not to do (and should not have to IMO, if you really want our help please give us a break). See #A valid concern below. Andrewa (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Andrewa: OK, sorry! The last attacks are from mid-September, right before I made this request. There were, only in September:
- Launebee, I know you've provided a lot of links and quotes above, but could you provide simple diffs to these last attacks? That would help me to get a handle on this in a reasonable time. Give only the examples that you think imply that you are a neo-nazi. It's not necessary to quote the text, just the diff is fine. TIA Andrewa (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki: Thanks for you time then. You are totally right, the old diffs alone don't justify a block, but it has been continuing meanwhile until now, and the last attacks – when it is implied I am a neo-nazi – are in September, I made the request right afterwards. --Launebee (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- I have better things to do on vacation than to straighten all of this out. The dispute has been going on at the talk page for 18 months and on pages relating to several French universities. The worst diffs (in Talk:Panthéon-Assas_University#Controversies_.3F) are almost a year old and I don't believe they justify a block now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- It seems that XTokyo consistently writes "Jew/Jews/Jewish" with a lowercase "j". Is that supposed to be some kind of a thinly disguised statement? The correct capitalization of other proper nouns comes across as a loud contrast. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Joefromrandb: Thanks, I never noticed. Panthéon-Assas has a very important Jewish community - its first student association is the Union des étudiants juifs de France according to Facebook likes and members – (it led to be attacked by far-right groups, and police had to protect the university at some point.) It might then explain why XIIIfromTokyo has a very very long history of removing any content he finds positive regarding Panthéon-Assas University, of removing sources and of severe disruption of the page. [39] Panthéon-Assas is the main page he contributed [40], but mainly to remove sources, using false or off-topic edit summaries etc. Three examples from this month only: [41][42][43] --Launebee (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
A valid concern
I looked at the first two diffs provided above (which seemed to be a complete answer to my question, see my response above), and invite others to look at this following diff which the first led me to.
It seems to me that Sad to see that a criminal is using such a method to harrass an other contributors (sic) is completely unacceptable on an article talk page, for several reasons... personal attack and discussing behaviour in the wrong place mainly.
In view of the fact that there are possibly faults on both sides, I suggest that at the very least a stern warning to XIIIfromTOKYO is appropriate, saying that an immediate block will follow any further violations of NPA and/or discussion of behaviour that violates WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE.
This must of course be no idle threat and followed through in need. Their English appears poor but that is no excuse (if we accept that excuse we open a floodgate to ESL pretenders). But keep the warning simple in the light of that possible problem.
Hopefully they will modify their behaviour as a result of this warning, and the other party might review their own contributions too and save us the time of doing so. And if not, we deal with it. Andrewa (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Further discussion
Andrewa, you told me above you just wanted the diffs and only them. Sorry again. I give them to you then:[44][45][46][47] (and not directed to me: [48][49])
You can see there is no fault on my side. It is purely free personal attacks.
Launebee (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Launebee, from that reply I am now quite convinced that there is fault on your side too, but do you really want me to look for it?
- Then start with the above post. I did not ask for more diffs, I said that you had answered that question, and yet you have further cluttered this discussion with this pointless post. I suggest you carefully read the guideline at wp:IDHT (and the rest of that page) and the essay at wp:boomerang. Note particularly that disruption can be unintentional, but it is still disruptive. You seem to have consistently ignored, or perhaps misunderstood, what I said, and I'll be surprised if I'm the only one you've done this to.
- It doesn't say on your user page, but I suspect English is not your first language either, is that correct? Is that part of the problem? Francais, c'est peut-etre mieux pour vous? Andrewa (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Note that this dispute has spilled into the French Wikipedia, or perhaps it started there. See fr:Utilisateur:XIIIfromTOKYO/Brouillon for example. Andrewa (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
You told me it was not a good answer, I just tried to give a good one. User:Jingiby thanked me for that post, I thought it was good. I am trying here. I seems I am not used to ANI rules, but you can ask User:Robminchin or User:Mr rnddude, I respect rules in talk pages, and I made no personal attacks like XIII. Regarding here, you did not tell me not to answer, so I did not know, now if you tell me that is the rule, I will do it.
I copy here the text you are refering to (how did you end up on that?):
Copy/pasted quoting
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Science Po and Assas are two rival schools in France, and a fierce competition has started a few year ago. It's decribed in this L'Étudiant article (well know French Newspaper dedicated to education) in the following ways[1] :
I can go on and on, but these schools are big rival in France, and it's not never a surprise when dirty politics start between them. On FR.Wikipedia, someone speaking on the behalf of the university has already tried in the past to edit the article, so Wikipédia is seen as a media that needsto be edited for the university [51]. We have had to face a SPA on the French Wikipédia for months, whose only goal was to aggressively (words and beheaviour) promote Assas. As you can see, the very same contributor has been doing the same thing here. The individual, or the company, in charge of this very aggressive PR compaign has a very distinctive beheaviour with a few key patterns :
The methods used are also the same : pretending that there is somewhere a consensus in order to revert, trying to have the article protected on his/her version, creating a lot of counterfire (ANI...). It would be very long to summarize everything, so consider reading the talk page or fr:Discussion:Université Panthéon-Assas, there are a lot of links and in depth explanation.
Long story short. The same contributor has tried the same strategy on FR and EN, with the same goal. It was carefully thought before starting the campaign, as the 2 accounts have been created on the very same day, just a few minutes appart, and have refrained from editing on an other Wikipédia. Still, that falls under the definition of Sock puppetry, especially if you include the SPAs and IPs used to back these actions.
Templates used as weapon against other rival colleges
And for Assas ? Well, not always removing POV dispute templates. Multiple use of sock puppet, and IPs
... (yes, a very long history log, so let's skip to the last removals)
Please not that the last 20 (!) templates removal by Launebee were done as more that 20 solid references were waiting on the talk page, as the university had to deal by some controversies during the last decades (only to be faced by legal threat if any of these reached the main page)[80]. Other contributors have also tried to put it back, but without any success.
|
This unsigned section was added here and seems to be covered by #Suggest close above, it's part of the same content dispute. Andrewa (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
(It is very long, so I need to be.)
It seems that XIII is talking about the past, nothing here seems recent. XIII seems to be saying that all the edits done in opposition to his edits are one big plot from a French university president, and – since he wrote this after my request – it would explain why he constantly threatens me and accuses me of anti-Semitism and homophobia, use abusive language, etc. XIII only give parts of talks, not up-to-date comments, and from that explains that there is one big plot against his point of view.
He mostly gives links in French, not related to me, so that the administrators cannot understand. But most of it is false translation. I would take only the two first links to prove it:
- "« « notre "collège de droit" est au cœur de notre politique d'identification forte » - Louis Vogel, president of assas University (the Law school is the main herald of our PR policy)" XIII is creating a confusion between the law school as a faculty or the law school as a special degree within a law faculty (see Law schools in France, here Vogel is talking about the latter ("collège de droit"), not at all his university
- XIII’s claim that someone claimed to be paid by PA in this edit [83] is simply false. The edit summary means nothing in French, and the IP history shows he has edited another article (within the only three edits) [84].
- As for the idea that every editor on the French wikipedia, would be one editor, it is just ridiculous. For example, the edit history of the second editor he is refering to had been edit-warring with Droas82 [85], they are clearly not the same editor. This plot theory makes no sense, and even if it were true, I do not see the point.
- It is not worth inspecting everything but all of that seems very untrue.
Regarding what’s left in English – very little –,
- On the SP lead, there was a consensus: I voted "strongly oppose" to that consensus (with a lengthy explanation, and other users pushing in the beginning for cherry-picking etc.) but I protected that consensus anyway, and asked to protect the page to protect that consensus anyway. You can see there are now civil talks, and issues are resolved thanks to Robminchin.
- On PA page, long has been going on since one year and half. There was indeed huge problems with the page, but everyone can verify there has thorough discussion with Mr Nurdule, an third independant user who said in the beginning that there was huge issues, but then we resolved those issues together, in spite of the personal attacks of XIII.
- On the other French universities webpages, stating similar things because the sources are clear, XIII says nothing.
- It is just ridiculous to say because templates were needed on one page, and not on the other one, that it would mean something beyond than that.
I edit a lot on Parisian universities, which are all linked to the Sorbonne, but he summarizes it by "Obsession with the word Sorbonne". You find the word "heir" or "inheritor" on all the pages of the inheritors of the Sorbonne, but it would be a plot focused on Panthéon-Assas. Etc. Etc. I think he has on obsession on the Sorbonne. And XIII does not seem to understand that if many users say the same thing, perhaps it is because that thing is right.
Who would trust someone who has blatantly made false accusations of antisemitism, homophobia, made legal threats, others threats and personal attacks? Everybody can see that I talk, I do a lot of RfC, I use sources, in short I am a good faith editor. The only thing true is that I have been driven once into an edit-warring and I already have been sanctioned for this. But with all these despicable personal attacks on anti-Semitism and homophobia, the threats, the aggressive language toward me, I think I have been more than patient with XIIIfromTokyo, by never answering in an uncivil manner to his attacks.
Finally, I would use wp:boomerang on the COI. XIII has clearly got one regarding SP, and it seems it is why he focuses that much on these two institutions he considers "rivals". The three universities he has links with have huge links with SP: Rennes 2 is deeply linked to Sciences Po Rennes (same group as Sciences Po)[86][87] (project of merger), Waseda too[88][89] (only link in France), Tokyo too[90][91]. So he considers SP an ally of his universities , and tries to do whatever he can to put false statement on what he considers a big rival of the ally of his university, referring to obscure and old article of 2009, not referring to the law school as law faculty but law school as a special degree ((see Law schools in France). And since it is a "rival" according to him, he considers there is a big plot in favor of PA, even though the accounts he is referring to seems to have edit-warring between them too, and are not saying what he wants them to say according to his false translations.
You can see, in English, this month only, I gave three edits on PA (its "rival" he thinks), with clearly false or off-topic edit summaries: [92][93][94].
--Launebee (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Suggest close
Launebee, I think that at least part of the problem is that your English is no better than my French, and I would not presume to edit articles in French Wikipedia at all, let alone controversial ones. You do not seem to understand my posts at all.
So I strongly suggest that you refrain from editing controversial articles in English Wikipedia. Attempt discussion on the article talk pages by all means. But let someone else fix the articles themselves. And be very wary of accusing others of mistranslation. You simply do not have the skills to assess this. Question the translation on the talk page if it needs questioning, and again let others fix it. If it needs fixing, in time they will.
Nobody else has commented on my assessment of XIIIfromTOKYO's behaviour (which was supposed to be the topic of #A valid concern above) and I am reluctant to act unilaterally, but it still seems an open-and-close case of an unacceptable edit to me.
Unless there is support for the proposed stern warning (or worse) to XIIIfromTOKYO, I think this is best closed as no trouble found. The content disputes belong elsewhere, as do the disputes on French Wikipedia. I referred to French Wikipedia only because I thought it important to recognise that neither of you is operating from a zero base, in that there's significant discussion on the French Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
My request was not about the content dispute, and not about the French Wikipedia. I was just answering. It was about the legal threats you noticed in #A valid concern, and the repetitive accusation of antisemitism and homophobia.
You can also see what Joefromrandb wrote above. Mr rnddude also noted XIII's personal attacks. --Launebee (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- There are no legal threats you noticed in #A valid concern. None whatsoever. Perhaps unintentionally this is another irrelevant sidetrack. Someone else may wish to unravel this, but I think we all have better things to do. Andrewa (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Launebee's COI
Sorry for the delay, but I'm still a bit busy IRL. As far as I can see, @Launebee: has again refused to disclose any COI with PA university (you have read what's on the French Wikipédia, so you might realize that I have found a few interesting things 
).
So let me ask it again, because that's clearly a point that you have purposely concealed until now. And a point that is crucial for the understandings of you 2 years campaign of edits. What link do you have (or did you have) with PA University.
As for myself, I have always clearly stated the links that I have had with any college on my user page in the French Wikipédia.
And feel free to call it an obsession again .XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you XIIIfromTOKYO, and yes, that does explain a lot.
- But that does not excuse your own behaviour. I am not going to unilaterally block you for this edit, and it's a bit stale now anyway. But I will certainly support a block if there are any further occurrences of personal attacks, or failure to follow proper procedures in dealing with attacks on yourself.
- I know that it's hard at times, especially as ANI has sometimes been ineffective in the past. That is why I am giving it some time myself now. If you need help with any behavioural issues, please feel free to ask for help on my talk page, or to email me. Andrewa (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Also, XIIIfromTOKYO, it is not sufficient to disclose your COI on your French Wikipedia user page. If you are involved in edits or discussions that involve your COI, you must disclose it here, because not all of us read French! I'm sorry if the policy does not make that clear and will follow that up. Andrewa (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- My affiliations have all been added[95], as they have been for years on the French Wikipédia.
- About the the edit you are pointing out, as you can read on the previous edit, a swarm of IPs have targeted my edits, in order to systematically revert my edits. It qualifies as Harassment, which is considered as a crime in France. So a breach of the point 4 of the terms of use. I'm not saying that Launebee personally did it, because I can't rull out that s/he is has been working with a larger group and/or company (because creating 2 accounts to target 2 version of Wikipedia clearly indicates that some level of organisation and/or experience is involved : these actions were carefly planed).
- Which brings us again to the concealement of Launebee's COI. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, XIIIfromTOKYO. I feel I must ask directly, do you have any other COI with respect to any French university or law school? And, as the term affiliation is yours (you created the User University of Rennes 2 template for example, and are currently the only one using it) what exactly is your affiliation with those that you list? Student, staff member, past student... what? Andrewa (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
wp:boomerang: XIIIfromTokyo COI
If an admin asks for a disclosure, I will answer, no problem. And the idea of a big plot linked with big money interests is not serious and is based on nothing serious, as I proved it above.
XIII has clearly got a COI regarding SP, and it seems it is why he focuses that much on these two institutions he considers "rivals". The three universities he has links with have huge links with SP: Rennes 2 is deeply linked to Sciences Po Rennes (same group as Sciences Po)[96][97] (project of merger), Waseda too[98][99] (only link in France), Tokyo too[100][101]. So he considers SP an ally of his universities , and tries to do whatever he can to put false statement on what he considers a big rival of the ally of his university, referring to obscure and old article of 2009, not referring to the law school as law faculty but law school as a special degree ((see Law schools in France). And since it is a "rival" according to him, he considers there is a big plot in favor of PA, even though the accounts he is referring to seems to have edit-warring between them too, and are not saying what he wants them to say according to his false translations.
You can see, in English, this month only, I gave three edits on PA (its "rival" he thinks), with clearly false or off-topic edit summaries: [102][103][104].
--Launebee (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
If an admin asks for a disclosure, I will answer, no problem. Done. It should not be necessary to ask, let alone necessary for it to be an admin that asks, but that was easily solved. Andrewa (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
New legal threat by XIIIfromTokyo
EdJohnston pointed out on 16 September[105] that XIII is doing legal threats, by calling someone a "criminal" on his talk page [106]. After a warning on edit-warring, since XIII continued, EdJohnston blocked XIII for three days.
XIII used the same language in an article talk page [107]. Andrewa wrote [108] that it "is completely unacceptable on an article talk page" (2 October)
Yet, here, on the 4 October, XIII is once again refering to a "crime" according to French law [109].
--Launebee (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced this is a legal threat as we use the term here. It may be seen as such on French Wikipedia, but our policy reads in part Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention.
- But I think there's a case for blocking you both. Neither of you should be editing the articles concerned. You are both francophones, and your English is just not good enough to do so. You do not understand English Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which are of course written in English. Ideally, you would both agree to a topic ban on these and related articles. We do not have the authority here to impose a topic ban, but we should consider a block for persistent disruption (perhaps unintentional, but we do not need to decide that, it's still disruption). Andrewa (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Many users have seen my good work on articles, you can ask User:Robminchin, User:Mr rnddude, and others. power~enwiki has been helping on one article too.
I quote you what Jytdog wrote about my work on SP article [110]: "I looked at this article as it stands now and as it stood before Launebee started working on it back in July (see this version. Like too many of our articles about universities, the former article was a cesspool of promotion - not a WP article at all, but a brochure for Sciences Po".
You can look at Pantheon-Sorbonne University before[111] and now. You can see that C.Fred looked after the discussion in talk page.
I also improved other articles in the Wikipedia, like San Diego State University template, Pierre and Marie Curie University (with some help from Robminchin), University of Paris III: Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris Descartes University, etc. Other contributors thanked me for edits, and everything is consistently sourced.
--Launebee (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Well, since I've been pinged here twice now, I'll stop by to write a small comment. On the topic of Jytdog's comment, I'll finish the whole quote;
as it stands now the article is still full of unsourced promotional content that belongs on the Sciences Po website (i.e. the unsourced content about the campuses and the entirely unsourced section about notable people)
. In other words, limited improvement on the whole. I personally don't think that either editor is here to intentionally cause problems, rather, that some disputes have lead to the formation of problems. There are a number of ways to rectify this, each with their pros and cons.
1. An IBAN - pros; will prevent the issues of civility and harrassment (IP's targeting XIII can be dealt with individually) / cons; won't prevent disruption, could have detrimental effects on articles.
2. A TBAN - pros; will prevent disruption to the articles / cons; won't impact on personal issues between the two editors, won't prevent disruption within the project and will leave both editors feeling punished.
or 3. A dual PBAN from Pantheon-Assas and Sciences Po - pros; is limited in scope, targeted to the locus of the dispute, and can be revisited after some set period / cons; as with a TBAN disruption may spread and still feels like punishment (just less severe).
In any case, it is up to the community to decide what to do. Any of these restrictions can be placed and enforced here on one or both editors - e.g. a two-way no fault IBAN. It's a matter of somebody proposing a course of action. On this task though, I must say, not me. Having interacted with both editors, I get both editors frustrations and the resultant problems they cause. Launebee is actively trying to expand and improve the Pantheon-Assas article. XIII notices problems cropping up in these edits and wholly undoes them. This then leads to back and forth arguments on the article talk and edit-warring in the article. Like I've said before, this is a zero sum game. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, Jytdog's sentence you quote was in favour of my point, which was that the Sciences Po article needed more improvement. It was one year ago, and SP alumni wanted to do what User:Robminchin called cherry-picking and put the sentence
Sciences Po is widely considered to be one of Europe's most prestigious academic institutions and was ranked 4th globally in politics and international studies by the QS World University Subjects Rankings 2017.
So, Jytdog was totally in favour of my point. I did a RfC, and as you can see, there was a consensus against such a sentence, which was totally my point and Jytdog's. DGG, Maproom, North8000 and later User:Robminchin clearly stated how my point was reasonable. Meanwhile, there has been a lot of improvement. I clearly helped the page to be improved a lot.
- And you can see I helped on San Diego State University template, Pierre and Marie Curie University, University of Paris III: Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris Descartes University, Pantheon-Sorbonne University, etc. --Launebee (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, good analysis IMO.
- Blocks and bans are not about punishment. They are about protecting the encyclopedia, and I see no other way forward. We have wasted more than enough time on these two editors. Their disruption of the encyclopedia must stop. If they will not agree to stop, and neither shows any inclination to do so, then unfortunately they must be stopped by the tools available.
- I expect that they will both claim not to understand why this is being considered. Their understanding is not an issue. Perhaps their (it seems very) limited English is the problem, or perhaps they are just playing wp:IDHT. I can't tell, but it doesn't matter, either way. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and they are both hindering that task.
- I'm going to pour another glass of good Australian Pinot Grigio and see if I can come up with a specific proposal, maybe in the morning, or maybe tomorrow night (Hobbys Yards time). But very interested in any other proposals. Andrewa (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I understand your point about not being punishment, and that you did not like the fact I wrote much here in ANI. In another hand, except one edit-warring once, there is no example of disruption from my part of articles, or personal attacks in talk pages etc. On SP page, today again, an edit was made against the consensus. In talk pages and articles, I clearly improve articles, like Jytdog said, and in talk pages, I clearly follow the rules, like the consensus on SP, I help protecting, in spite of the fact I was "strongly opposed" to the current version. Whereas I gave, for September only, three examples of diffs where XIII has been disruptive using false or off-topic edit summaries and deleting source. --Launebee (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Again, this simply fails to address the issues, and shows that you have no intention of doing so.
- The problem is not that you wrote much here in ANI. It's that what you wrote did not address the question, or even appear to understand it.
- Nor is it alleged by anyone that all of your work is unproductive. That's not the point at all. You've said this before, and nobody is arguing with it. But that is not the problem. Andrewa (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- What I said is that there has not been any disruption from my part on articles, except the edit-warring with the block afterwards. If you can show one disruption of PA page, please tell me.
- On another hand, I showed, the last month only, many personal attacks, possible threats and disruptive editing from XIIIfromTokyo. [112][113][114] I did not do all of that. --Launebee (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- The problem with XIIIfromTOKYO is I think generally accepted, and you do not need to further clutter this page with repeating your evidence. The claim that there has not been any disruption from my part on articles, except the edit-warring with the block afterwards. If you can show one disruption of PA page, please tell me (emphasis removed) is itself disruptive, perhaps unintentionally, as is explained in #To summarise again below. Andrewa (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- I understand your point about not being punishment, and that you did not like the fact I wrote much here in ANI. In another hand, except one edit-warring once, there is no example of disruption from my part of articles, or personal attacks in talk pages etc. On SP page, today again, an edit was made against the consensus. In talk pages and articles, I clearly improve articles, like Jytdog said, and in talk pages, I clearly follow the rules, like the consensus on SP, I help protecting, in spite of the fact I was "strongly opposed" to the current version. Whereas I gave, for September only, three examples of diffs where XIII has been disruptive using false or off-topic edit summaries and deleting source. --Launebee (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, Jytdog's sentence you quote was in favour of my point, which was that the Sciences Po article needed more improvement. It was one year ago, and SP alumni wanted to do what User:Robminchin called cherry-picking and put the sentence
To summarise again
I remain of the opinion that there is fault on both sides. That does not necessarily mean that I blame either or suggest any lack of good faith on either part. It simply means that, for whatever reason, both editors are damaging Wikipedia, and showing no sign of changing their behaviour so that this would cease. Neither appears to have sufficient competence in English to productively work on the controversial articles involved, or even to understand why they should take a step back from them.
See #A valid concern and #Suggested close above. Neither of them seem to get it. Whether this is because of language difficulties we do not need to decide. It is still disruptive, and we have better things to do.
Possible remedies were well analysed IMO at #New legal threat by XIIIfromTokyo above, with the one proviso that I made in the discussion there... I'm afraid it's not important that one may feel unjustly punished, although obviously it would be good to avoid that.
This is not about justice or punishment. It's about what is best for Wikipedia. The disruption must stop.
So far as the underlying content dispute at Panthéon-Assas University goes, there are several experienced editors active in editing the page. Semi-protection in need should be used to solve any problem with IPs. Andrewa (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- (Please see above my answer on the fact there has been no disruption from my part in articles, and many from XIII.) power~enwiki wrote above, "The solution to the personal dispute is to have additional editors on that page, @ARBN19: has previously edited this page a significant amount and possibly could comment". Perhaps he could hear us to comment if he sees any disruption from me on PA page? --Launebee (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I think we just have to accept that you and I disagree on whether or not your behaviour is disruptive. You say there has been no disruption from my part in articles (my emphasis) when the issue is disruption generally, not just in articles, so again it seems that for whatever reason you simply fail to understand. wp:IDHT is a section of wp:disruptive editing, of course.
- Strongly agree that the solution to the personal dispute is to have additional editors on that page, and as I pointed out there are already several others active, including but not only power~enwiki. I looked at the Panthéon-Assas University article some time ago to see whether perhaps it was so poorly written and referenced that it should be stubified, but nothing could be further from the truth. So there is no need for either you or XIIIfromTokyo to edit there.
Please stop pinging me on this thread. WP:IDHT to read all this drama. If there's no chance of a peaceful resolution, I recommend both Launebee and XIIIFromTokyo be TBAN-ed from pages on French universities to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Andrewa, so we agree the article is in good shape. You can see its state before I worked on it: [115]. Like other articles I worked on, there are now much more references and material. Perhaps you would agree there are two different topics in this dispute.
- On content, it needs to move forward indeed. So I would agree, if XIII is banned to edit PA page, to stop editing the PA article when there is a disagreement in talk page, and to ask systematically for a third opinion before editing if it is the case. There is no need to ban me, because I may add updates or non controversial content, but I won't be adding something new (from now on) if there is a two-way disagreement in talk page and there has been no third opinion. Note that the warring is only on PA.
- The second topic is the personal attacks, and I would request a separate answer. I understand on content a third opinion is needed, as you both say, but on personal attacks and repetitive false accusations (antisemitism, homophobia, plot, etc.), XIII needs to know that it is not acceptable. And I never committed such attacks. This should be answered separately with a block. If XIII strikes all his attacks and threats, or states that that I have never said anything wrong about Jews or homosexuals, that I am not part of a plot, and that I never did anything "criminal", however, it means he would have understood, and a warning may be sufficient.
- I hope that seems reasonable.
- --Launebee (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, you need to agree not to edit that article at all, whether or not there is a similar agreement from the other party or other action regarding them. There is no reason to give you the decision as to what is controversial. To do so makes your undertaking meaningless, and so is no resolution.
- Thanks, Power~enwiki, (note that there is no ping as requested).
- Support this proposal that both Launebee and XIIIFromTokyo be TBAN-ed from pages on French universities to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Andrewa (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- The proposal was only if the issue is not resolved. Note also that we are only talking about the PA page, not all French universities, there has been no dispute on most of those university pages, and you are not saying that all my work has been disruptive.
- Regarding the PA, you can see I clearly improved the article. "Controversial" means here that somebody disagrees. If somebody disagrees, I do not edit. But it is the benefit of Wikipedia if I can update or add sources (there are still sections that need sources), like in other articles improved by me, and where nobody complained.
- --Launebee (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Whether it was a proposal or a proposed proposal or a proposal contingent on some other event, I think the intent is clear and I support it.
- Your uncontroversial edits are appreciated. But you should not now be editing these articles at all. If you can provide these missing sources, just describe them (linking if they are online of course) on the article talk page, for example at the section Talk:Panthéon-Assas University#Sources to be added which I just created. They can be discussed there in need, but if they're online and good they'll just be checked and added. Sources supporting content can be in any language; If they are in French then there are several editors here who are quite capable of reading them. Andrewa (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
COI guideline is already pretty good
I just add this for completeness, as I said above that I'd look at clarifying the COI guideline to make it clear that disclosure of COI on another language Wikipedia is not acceptable, but rather that disclosure must be done on English Wikipedia if it affects articles on English Wikipedia.
It seems to me that it's already clear enough, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI. The problem seems to be that the user concerned had either not read or had not understood the guideline (and in any case they seem to be denying COI), and if it's lack of understanding this is because their English is poor. And we can't do anything about either of those problems by improving the guideline.
So I propose no further action, and add this section just to make sure that nobody is misled by my comment above. Andrewa (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Presenttruth777
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Presenttruth777 has been causing problems at the Davidian Seventh-day Adventist page despite warnings and explanations. She or he almost never edits anywhere else (see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account).
When other people have removed inappropriate things from this page, such as Special:Diff/792709793, she or he restores them, Special:Diff/798562646. This user added a section of unsourced text to this article a few days ago ([116]), which I removed, Special:Diff/801573336. That part was restored, Special:Diff/801581912, and I deleted it again, Special:Diff/801584847 and left a sourcing notice at the editor's talk page, Special:Diff/801584875. The editor then put it back with references to [117] and [118], but I removed them on WP:CIRC grounds, Special:Diff/801742471, because [119] is not reliable (it's just a memorial that was read at someone's funeral) and [120] is a doctrinal statement that depends on a Wikipedia article (or actually, two of them). After removing this text, I explained to Presenttruth777 why I had removed it, Special:Diff/801742774, but Presenttruth777 just put it back with more unreliable sources. I made one last revert and was once again undone, Special:Diff/801860080 and Special:Diff/801979677, and since Presenttruth777 keeps reverting me, I won't hit the undo button again and again and again. And Presenttruth777 responded to my removal explanation, Special:Diff/801841514, by saying "The sources are verified and well known within the Davidian community. Your arbitration judgment is unacceptable--STOP controlling our original article." It doesn't matter if these are well known within the Davidian community if they aren't WP:IRS, and WP:OWN it's not Presenttruth777's original article.
I don't know much about the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists. I don't know if this text is accurate or not, and if it's referenced to a reliable source, I wouldn't touch it. I just know that it's not right to base Wikipedia articles on other Wikipedia articles or on unreliable sources like eulogies, so someone needs to stop this editor who just keeps adding unsourced or badly sourced information and thinks that I'm trying to control her or his own article. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. You don't know much about Davidian Seventh-day Adventists evident by trying to eliminate a very important and integral part of the report. Ben Roden, founder of the "BRANCH DSDA" is often confused as being an "original Davidian", thus there is need to point out the differences. Although not lengthy on showing his divergent teachings it does touch on this important difference, The references are well known in the DSDA and BDSDA community and are considered reliable.
False you are trying to control it, this article has been labeled as high importance and we have had it running now for several years with relatively few problems until you come along, with very little knowledge of the historical DSDA truth/teachings. Presenttruth777 (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC) /* Presenttruth777 */
- I noted they were just reverted again at the page for adding materials from a primary and not secondary source. Of concern however is the comment on their talk page "STOP controlling our original article". Is this a joint account from the church itself? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Just want to note the continuing validity of the observation that editors with "truth" in their names almost invariably turn out to be a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- I was actually just about to post a comment along a similar vein @Beyond My Ken:. Blackmane (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Great minds, and all that. Beyond "Truthy" Ken (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I was actually just about to post a comment along a similar vein @Beyond My Ken:. Blackmane (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Just want to note the continuing validity of the observation that editors with "truth" in their names almost invariably turn out to be a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
We (us who have experience in DSDA teachings and history) will continue to monitor this article we wrote and make sure it STAYS clear and truthful as originally intended. If anyone have a "legitimate" concern let us know but stop arbitrarily deleting what is true and verifiable. Presenttruth777 (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC) /* Presenttruth777 */
- If by "clear and truthful" you mean "adheres to DSDA's view of itself", then you're in for some problems if you violate WP:NPOV and prevent other editors from presenting verifiable facts about the group that they would rather not have in the article. Please see WP:OWN - no one editor, or any group of editors, "owns" an article, whether they wrote it or not. Watch your step, because your statement reads very much like an attempt to own that article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that the top three contributors to the Davidian Seventh-day Adventist article [121], User:Presenttruth777, User:Tonadachi, and User:Srodinfo (cf. "The Shepherd's Rod") have edited little or nothing other then that article or the Branch Davidians article. Also Tonadachi's last edit was 2013-06-18 and Presenttruth777's first edit was just 5 days earlier, on 2013-06-12, which perhaps indicates the turning over of the responsibility for "guarding" the article from one person to another within an organized group. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
What does all this have to do with an honest truthful article. Now if you can point to errors and misstatements of facts then let's talk, but your personal opinions and assumptions won't cut it. As this article has been labelled as "High Importance" and shown by the tens of thousands of views over the last 3 plus years, we would hope that anyone here who want's changes can bring to the table solid facts and historical references to back up there changes.Some edits have been beneficial and should stand but those that are false or misstated of facts should not be allowed to stand in this article.Presenttruth777 (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Presenttruth777
- The page and related pages contain material ommisions and a whole lot of promotion. There is a lot of overlinking amd links back to the same page too. I've started to clean the page up - will see how Presenttruth777 reacts. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- "What does all this have to do with an honest truthful article." "Honest" and "truthful" are fine, but what we need the article to be most of all is neutral and verifiable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- The page and related pages contain material ommisions and a whole lot of promotion. There is a lot of overlinking amd links back to the same page too. I've started to clean the page up - will see how Presenttruth777 reacts. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Please do not archive or close this discussion, as the attempt to WP:OWN the article Davidian Seventh-day Adventist by User:Presenttruth777 is ongoing. My prediction: this is inevitably going to end up with Presenttruth777 being indef blocked from editing, but we have to let things play out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- There is no attempt to own the article as we have agreed with many edits (improvements) in the history from the beginnings of our submission of this historical article based on the D.S.D.A movement. However we strongly feel that incorrect and factless editing is detrimental to the very purpose of the article. Presenttruth777 (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Presenttruth777
- Blocked. These posts are the nearest Presenttruth777 has come to answering questions like DMacks's above. It looks like a role account, swims like a role account, and quacks like a role account. I also don't find their claims to be "regular individuals and not associated with any particular group" very convincing. I've blocked the account indefinitely, attempting to explain why on their page, and telling them we need a clear and comprehensive statement as to who controls the account. If they furnish that they may be unblocked. Or not, since we don't allow role accounts. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC).
User:Legacypac altering, striking out, and deleting other editors' talk page comments
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Legacypac was warned multiple times about altering other editors' talk page comments. Some recent examples: altering a discussion after it's been closed; silently removing another editor's comment; altering another editor's comment under the guise of fixing an incorrect link; removing their own username from a complaint against them; "accidentally" removing (and then restoring) another editor's complaint of altering records; these are just from the last two weeks that I've been able to easily find in Legacypac's contribution history. When someone pointed out Legacypac has a very long history of altering and deleting other people's comments, Legacypac deleted their comment... Since Legacypac was sufficiently warned by admins (and non-admins) about this behavior, I think it's time to block them. Bright☀ 10:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- No comment on the rest of it, but ""accidentally" removing (and then restoring) another editor's complaint of altering records" is pretty obviously a fuck-up given that the next diff, no more than a minute later, is to undo himself literally with the comment "wrong button". If he was actually trying to remove Taku's comment I feel like he would have, you know, not done that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- What a dismal collection of links! September 14, 16, 15, 12, 16, 24 and March 13. The last (the warning by an admin) was for striking out a comment by a now-indeffed sock and is of a totally different nature to the others. The first link shows Legacypac tweaking a comment they had written 20 minutes earlier—I'm not sure what that is showing. Is anyone suggesting the second diff was not highly desirable (it removes a link to an article added by an inexperienced editor)? The third shows Legacypac removing Legacypac's name from an ANI section heading, two weeks ago. Perhaps not the wisest, but defensible and not a big deal. The Sep 12 edit was to remove a pointy and pointless remark (very close to a personal attack) directed at Legacypac. See immediate revert "wrong button". Now we're up to the Sep 24 edit, and that shows what this is about. BrightR does not like the fact that Legacypac removed a pointy and pointless comment from, gasp, BrightR's talk. Would people asking for sanctions at ANI please not hide the underlying issue. There was no edit warring, and asking for a block is ridiculous. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I believe that such a deceitful posting by the OP, at ANI no less, deserves some response from the community to indicate how we feel about such behaviour? -Roxy the dog. bark 11:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Not only that, perhaps it is also time to take a look at User:DocumentError, who posted that comment to BrightR's page. In 2016, DocumentError edited for one day: in 2017, they edited one day (four edits to Trump), and then suddenly they reappeared on the Arthur Rubin Arbcom case to where they have now edited 28 times (give or take a few), starting with "evidence" defending Arthur Rubin about actions against... Legacypac[122]. This seems all to be retaliation for an ANI discussion in early 2015[123] started by legacyPac, about DocumentError, whih resulted in a block for DocumentError (first 36 hours, soon after an indefinite block). It seems that since then, he has avoided enwiki until now, when he has the chance to take revenge upon Legacypac.
- I now notice that his unblock (five months after he was indef blocked) was with restrictions, including an interaction ban with Legacypac[124]. If this interaction ban is still valid, then the Arbcom edits and the edit we are discussing here are rather exteme breaches of this and it may be best if we simply re-indef this user. @PBS: as the admin who blocked and unblocked. Fram (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Fram this edit and the links that branch out from it explain the situation. The indefinite block was only to force DocumentError to say if he would keep to a voluntary agreement or not. By the time DocumentError had finished procrastinating and playing the "unfairly done by", so much time had passed that there was no need to renew the restriction that were meant to be voluntary. What stayed in place was the ban I placed on DocumentError Legacypac from mentioning each others behaviour before 13 January 2015 (see ANI § Harassment). This was put in place to stop ANIs degenerating into an historical blame game instead of concentrating on current behaviour. If there is continuing trouble over their interaction then I would support an interaction ban. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Legacypac's behaviour the edit by DocumentError linked at the top of this section, given Legacypac and DocumentError interaction less than helpful.-- PBS (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. So they have a voluntary interaction ban, installed on 13 January 2015; they never accepted the interaction ban, have been unblocked by User:PhilKnight in June 2015 anyway, and DocumentError asked for a reblock on themselves in August 2015[125]. The current situation of the editing restriction was never made clear apparently. Fram (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- One other section on the original previous proposed voluntary iban conversation that I did not include above (because the link was broken due to archiving) is: § In ref to the ANI, it took place on my talk page on 13 January 2015. I gave DocumentError a further 24 hours to say yea or nay to the voluntary ban. When DocumentError error did not respond I blocked the account initially indefinitely (then adjusted until the end of the proposed six month voluntary iban period). -- PBS (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. So they have a voluntary interaction ban, installed on 13 January 2015; they never accepted the interaction ban, have been unblocked by User:PhilKnight in June 2015 anyway, and DocumentError asked for a reblock on themselves in August 2015[125]. The current situation of the editing restriction was never made clear apparently. Fram (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Fram this edit and the links that branch out from it explain the situation. The indefinite block was only to force DocumentError to say if he would keep to a voluntary agreement or not. By the time DocumentError had finished procrastinating and playing the "unfairly done by", so much time had passed that there was no need to renew the restriction that were meant to be voluntary. What stayed in place was the ban I placed on DocumentError Legacypac from mentioning each others behaviour before 13 January 2015 (see ANI § Harassment). This was put in place to stop ANIs degenerating into an historical blame game instead of concentrating on current behaviour. If there is continuing trouble over their interaction then I would support an interaction ban. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Legacypac's behaviour the edit by DocumentError linked at the top of this section, given Legacypac and DocumentError interaction less than helpful.-- PBS (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: I do not think this ANI post is deceitful, and Legacypac was indeed completely in the wrong removing someone's criticism of him from the OP's talkpage. He also needs to completely stop removing usernames from ANI threads, regardless of what some users think about that; it's a practice that is not going to go away because of a single poll, and it increases the utility of the board. The "silently removing another editor's comment" seems to be a standard ANI edit conflict that happens often. This removal of another user's comment should be regarded as accidental since he reverted less than one minute later, and said it was accidental. My recommendation would be a final warning to Legacypac about altering others' posts or talkpage headers, with a block to ensue if it happens again. The warning 1.5 years ago was arguably too distant. Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see this report as timely or actionable, mostly per Johnuniq. I also agree with Fram that DocumentError needs some looking at to determine if their edits have violated their restrictions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Few weeks ago it was Beyond My Ken on the chopping block and this week it's now LegacyPac .... Wonder who'll be dragged here next week!, Anyway the only thing I see troubling is this diff (That comment shouldn't of been removed) and this diff (Why would you remove your name I don't get that? ... ) but other than those 2 I don't see any troubling behaviour - The nominator should've discussed this all with LP first!, Anyway as per Johnuniq this should be closed as non-actionable ... boomerang's pushing it isn't it? ... –Davey2010Talk 13:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- @User:Davey2010 thanks for your comments. Diff #1 is an obvious accident I was unaware off until now. Maybe I saved a page again that User:TonyBallioni had both just edited? Anyway, purely accidental and I've restored it, though the discussion is over. Diff #2 is removing my name from an ANi thread header against me that failed [126] per [127] Legacypac (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think I noticed it at the time but it didn't bother me enough to restore it or even mention it to Legacypac. I just assumed he accidentally removed it during an edit conflict. In the lead up to the ACTRIAL rollout there was a lot of activity going on in a bunch of places, and I think this happened a few times with multiple editors. I have no reason to think Legacypac was trying to remove anything I said, and if that diff is being discussed here, as the other "party" I'd urge it be disregarded. I hadn't even remembered it until I was pinged. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ah sorry I obviously didn't realise it was accidental - There may of well been a valid reason and you could've just forgot to include in the edit summary (I've done this multiple times as wasn't trying to assume bad faith), As for Diff 2 although it failed I still personally don't think it should've been removed - My name's been dragged here more than once but I've never thought about removing my name but we're all different and although I perhaps object I don't think it's worth bringing you (or anyone) here over it,
- @User:Davey2010 thanks for your comments. Diff #1 is an obvious accident I was unaware off until now. Maybe I saved a page again that User:TonyBallioni had both just edited? Anyway, purely accidental and I've restored it, though the discussion is over. Diff #2 is removing my name from an ANi thread header against me that failed [126] per [127] Legacypac (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- A formal warning seems appropriate. Specifically, a warning that Legacypac may not remove or alter comments made by other editors in any way on a page other than their own user talk. Fixing typos/wikilinks made by other editors is not desirable, per WP:TPO. The real problem is the removal of comments criticizing them or that they don't like, though. ~ Rob13Talk 13:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- No, the real problem is an editor who has an interaction ban with Legacypac (as a condition to get an indef block lifted) who stalks Legacypac and violates his interaction ban with impunity. The only reason I haven't indef blocked them yet is because I first want to hear from PBS whether the sanction is still in place (I haven't found an indication otherwise though). Fram (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- The only reason I haven't indef blocked them yet is because I first want to hear from PBS whether the sanction is still in place (I haven't found an indication otherwise though).
- Per PBS, User:Mr_rnddude, and User:Reyk below, my voluntary IBAN ended a little over two years ago. DocumentError (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- who stalks Legacypac
- Per Legacypac [[128]], he's had no interaction with me - prior to this month - in the last three years. This month, this is the extent of my "stalking": [129]. DocumentError (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- BU Rob13, just as a minor point of clarification, Legacypac is a regular recipient of formal warnings, "only warnings" and "last chance" warnings about editing others Talk page comments. (i.e [130], [131], etc.) DocumentError (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- As one who has previously been in @Legacypac:'s camp, I'll make the statement abundantly clear: Because of previous questionable actions, do not under any circumstances edit or modify another editor's talk page efforts. An exception is given for properly archiving stale threads, but no others. If you don't make mistakes and people still chase infractions, then they're vexatious litigants, and we know exactly what to do with them. Hasteur (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment User:BrightR I really really do not want to have to start to look back the interaction between yourself and Legacypac to see why good Wikipedian that you are you would need to make a citizens arrest like this. So can you briefly explain the history of your interaction that has motivated you to bring this ANI? -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- @PBS: noted above; I asked Legacypac not to edit other editors' comments (after he edited mine); he responded he doesn't know what I'm talking about. Another editor (who I now found out has an interaction ban with Legacypac) commented on my talk page about it, and Legacypac deleted their comment. I asked the admin who gave Legacypac the warning to act on it, but they couldn't since they're in a content dispute with Legacypac, and they suggested coming to AN/I. Bright☀ 19:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Davey2010:
The nominator should've discussed this all with LP first!
You mean like this and this? Since AN/I is the place for long-standing behavior issues I find that the suggestion to take it to WP:AN was correct. Bright☀ 19:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment User:BrightR As I do not know the circumstances of most of the edits above I will not comment on them. But there is one I will is altering a discussion after it's been closed. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines although not strictly applicable to ANIs most of the guidance is still useful. See the bullet points in the section WP:TPO "Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate,...". See also the section WP:TALKNEW "Keep headings neutral" and the phrase in that "Don't address other users in a heading:" Just as the heading that Legacypac edited failed that guidance, so does the current text of this section "User:Legacypac altering, striking out, and deleting other editors' talk page comments". The major reason for this is explained in the sentence "As edit summaries and edit histories..." -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Some exceptions are made at administrative noticeboards, where reporting problems by name is normal
...Reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception, especially reporting edit warring or other incidents to administrators
... Bright☀ 20:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see anything presently actionable here. Replacing one's name in an ANI subheader with an acceptably specific pointer isn't sanctionable conduct IMO unless it's deliberately disruptive, or someone is under an explicit ban from doing so; do we want to enact such a ban for Legacypac? Further, removing comments from one's own talkpage is explicitly allowed per WP:OWNTALK. As for DocumentError, as PBS explained above they never accepted the "voluntary" ban on interactions with Legacypac. They explicitly rejected that condition, and insisted that they should be re-blocked until a subsequent discussion could determine their fate. It seems when no admins took them up on that, they simply left the project. The only ban that is in place AFAICT is that LP and DE may not refer to instances involving each other prior to 15 January 2015 in any subsequent ANI discussion (my interpretation). (edit conflict with below) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ivanvector - just a point of clarification. Legacypac did not remove comments from his own talkpage. Of course, that would be permissible. He removed my comments from BrightR's talkpage. [132] He has, in the past, freely edited and deleted others comments on Talk pages (not his own); User:DESiegel warned him on an earlier occasion [133] such acts are subject to immediate blocking. After he continued to do it with other editors, User:Cryptic told him [134] another instance by him would result in an immediate block. You can imagine how frustrating it is for some of us to express our opinion on content and issues only to have our opinions changed or amended after-the-fact - or completely erased - by others. 00:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocumentError (talk • contribs)
Background on BrightR's post:
- On Sept 24 BrightR templates me with no explanation of why and
- I revert template with "Take to their talkpage. No idea what this is about" (same diff)
- I request details at BrightR talk [135]
- BrightR ironically edits my comments by moving them from BrightR talk to my talk, where they make less sense [136]
- I revert his post with "This belongs on your talk page. Still no diff."
- BrightR never supplied a diff but I notice this post to BrightR's talk (which I'm now watching since I was looking for that missing diff) by DocumentError who sees another opening to get me sanctioned [137]. Rightly or wrongly I removed this post as harassment by an editor butting into a situation with a laundry list of perceived wrongs.
- On Sept 26 BrightR uses DocumentError's list of perceived wrongs to post to User_talk:Cryptic#Legacypac_deleting.2C_altering.2C_and_striking_out_other_editors.27_comments Claiming he never had time to supply a diff, but linking this diff from Sept 21 where I removed User:Beyond My Ken's name from a live ANi header (with comment: no need to name editor in header of failed proposal) where BrightR's attempt to sanction BMK for edit warring failed spectacularly. This is not editing his comment as he claims, but editing an ANi header.
- BrightR restores User:Beyond My Ken's name to the header, after it is archived [138]
- Note at Cryptic's talk User:DocumentError showed up suggesting I take this to ANi.
Summary: On Sept 21 I did not edit anyone's comments, I changed an ANi header that referenced User:Beyond My Ken. I get templated on Sept 24 for this by BrightR who refuses to supply a diff. Then on Sept 26 BrightR uses info supplied by DocumentError to seek sanctions against me, revealing for the first time that they are upset about the BMK header. When Cryptic declines to sanction me, BrightR starts this Sept 28 ANi thread. Legacypac (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't "refuse" anything; as soon as I got on Wikipedia after you asked for a diff, I gave you the diff... I templated your talk page, you asked what's it about, I said it's about editing other editor's comments, you asked for a diff, as soon as I got back on Wikipedia I supplied the diff... Bright☀ 19:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think it's worth pointing out (I don't think anyone has yet noticed) that the "final warning" that Cryptic posted on Legacypac's talk page, which BrightR has diffed here and elsewhere, is a post from eighteen months ago (March 2016). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- People on AN/I keep dismissing long-standing behavior issues because they're so old; well, AN/I is for long-standing behavior issues, and things that are long-standing are old by definition, aren't they? Since this behavior is ongoing (see the one that sparked my involvement, editing another editor's comment in a discussion after it was closed) then it seems appropriate to have AN/I address it. And get told that it's old and so it doesn't matter... Bright☀ 19:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Or maybe, MAYBE, you shouldn't run to ANI for every slight you see. Perhaps talking to an administrator you trust first? Maybe? Realm of possibility? Common sense? --Tarage (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I did... they told me to take it to AN... You know, like it says in Wikipedia policy. Maybe if AN/I doesn't want to discuss conduct issues it shouldn't be stated in policy that this is the place for conduct issues? Bright☀ 19:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Which ones? Because if this is the case, they need to be brought here to explain themselves... --Tarage (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- User talk:Cryptic#Legacypac deleting.2C altering.2C and striking out other editors.27 comments. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Which ones? Because if this is the case, they need to be brought here to explain themselves... --Tarage (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I did... they told me to take it to AN... You know, like it says in Wikipedia policy. Maybe if AN/I doesn't want to discuss conduct issues it shouldn't be stated in policy that this is the place for conduct issues? Bright☀ 19:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Or maybe, MAYBE, you shouldn't run to ANI for every slight you see. Perhaps talking to an administrator you trust first? Maybe? Realm of possibility? Common sense? --Tarage (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- People on AN/I keep dismissing long-standing behavior issues because they're so old; well, AN/I is for long-standing behavior issues, and things that are long-standing are old by definition, aren't they? Since this behavior is ongoing (see the one that sparked my involvement, editing another editor's comment in a discussion after it was closed) then it seems appropriate to have AN/I address it. And get told that it's old and so it doesn't matter... Bright☀ 19:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Propose indefinite interaction ban between DocumentError and Legacypac
This whole kerfuffle was basically caused by DocumentError, who since his 5-month block in 2015 (regarding dealings with Legacypac) hsa largely left enwiki (one day of editing in 2016, one day and article in 2017 before this all began) and has now returned in full force to harass Legacypac (at the Arthur Rubin Arbcom cae and at other users talk pages). In January 2015, a voluntary interaction ban with Legacypac was set as the condition for an unblock, but the situarion at the eventual unblock in June 2015 is rather muddled, making a current block based on that interaction ban perhaps dubious. However, there is no reason at all not to reinstate (though this time not voluntary) the interaction ban to avoid more of this in the future. Fram (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support. you proposal and your summation to my comment above, as it seems "Age shall not weary them". -- PBS (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support one-way IBAN on DocumentError towards Legacypac - I see nothing to suggest a restriction needs to be placed on Legacypac. – Nihlus (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support one-way IBAN on DocumentError towards Legacypac, per Nihlus, but if the consensus is otherwise for a two-way ban, this can be counted as a support for that, as a second choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- I like to think that the only "camp" I'm in is the "improve Wikipedia" camp, and that all my decisions are based on an objective evaluation of the circumstances and evidence, but I'm as human as the next person, and as likely to give a break to someone I know has been in the "improve Wikipedia" camp as well, versus someone who appears to be editing for reasons of a personal grudge. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support one way IBAN--Per Nihlus.BMK has put the situation beautifully. Winged Blades Godric 15:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support one-way IBAN on DocumentError towards Legacypac, per Nihlus. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. I understand the concerns expressed here about DocumentError's behavior. However, DocumentError has not yet commented in this thread and in fact has not edited in the last 24 hours. I am not a fan of procedure for its own sake, but it really would make more sense to allow DocumentError to respond before this discussion goes much further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad Thank you, and I appreciate your note. I apologize as I've been gone a few days and will probably not be around much after tomorrow for an unclear length of time. Per my note below, I don't really have any serious objections to an IBAN. LP and I have not edited any of the same articles or article Talk pages in at least three years [139], and the extent of our interaction elsewhere during those years is limited to: (a) discussion related to this ANI thread, and, (b) the Arbcom case against Arthur Rubin. Ergo, an IBAN will essentially have no impact on my editing ability as we don't really interact currently. I'm mildly opposed to it for procedural reasons but it's really no biggie. DocumentError (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm not seeing behaviour here that clearly rises to the level of harassment. DocumentError notes in their userspace that they are a student, which suggests an availability to edit which follows their recent pattern of absences, and as I noted above they appeared to go on a self-imposed exile after having their block log spoiled (deservedly) back in 2015. While it's unusual that their first edits back after having edited only sporadically since that time, and only most recently in May, were to comment on an open arbitration case where their supposed opponent had already commented, their edits to the Arthur Rubin arbitration case were relevant and on-topic. It's true that their comments there were directly refuting claims made by Legacypac, but they were under no restriction from doing so, they did so politely and with backing evidence, and their comments were accepted as case evidence by the committee clerks. And as far as I can tell their recent editing on user talk pages with respect to Legacypac have been reasonable criticism of another editor's behaviour, neither trolling, harassment, nor personal attacks. (ec with NewYorkBrad above)Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Involved Comment on Situation I researched the DocError situation last night and posted my findings at User_talk:Mkdw: [140] I don't believe that DocError is currently under a mandatory IBAN with me. I've been on self imposed avoidance of Doc Error since early 2015 (diffs available) and have not in any way sought interaction with them or until last night even looked at what they were up to since 2015. My findings are consistent with Johnuniq and User:PBS's analysis above. DocError has been operating as a nearly WP:SPA focused on conflict with me since January 2015. I have little else to say on the matter except sanctioning me over his activity is inconsistent with the facts. Legacypac (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support one-way IBAN, if only because this formalizes the unblock condition and makes it clear what the community expects. While I appreciate NYB's suggestion that we might wish to wait for DocumentError's input, I think the situation is sufficiently clear (in that there arguably was a voluntary IBAN already) that there's really no need. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support one-way IBAN. per above. Harassment is harassment, plain and simple. -FASTILY 20:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support one-way IBAN (or two-way if that is all that can be achieved). DocumentError's 24 September 2017 post at User talk:BrightR#hang in there is pure battleground behavior. Wikipedia does not need people nipping the heels of an editor and supporting allies to further the battle. Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose one-way; no comment on anything else. One-way bans are routinely unhelpful, to a significant extent because they can be gamed. If DocumentError has done enough that sanctions are warranted, but Legacypac hasn't, it's time for a block. If both parties have unclean hands, then do a two-way ban or sanction neither of them. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- There appears to be no evidence of Legacypac pursuing DocumentError, yet it is obvious that DocumentError's 24 September 2017 post is part of a pattern (see Fram's comments above) of DocumentError pursuing Legacypac. The post is mild enough so that a block would be unusual, but the pattern shows an obvious need for resolution. If an admin would volunteer to issue a final warning, and then follow it up if needed, that would be fine. However, such an arrangement would be easy to game. It would be much cleaner to apply the wording of WP:IBAN. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support although frankly a more perm solution would be preferred. At least a 1-way ban would prevent them posting nonsense such as their submission to the current AR arbcom case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support one-way IBAN see plenty of reason to sanction DE, for stalking Legacypac in violation of the restriction agreed to when unblocked. I see no evidence to support making the IBAN mutual. False equivalency. David in DC (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support two-way IBAN and Oppose any one-way IBAN Really I believe an one-way IBAN might just escalate the situation if LP doesn't act rationally, now this is not an assumption of any kind but one-way IBANs are severely restrictive and often more than less, it seeks to beat the point. The two-way IBAN is not a sanction I'd like to be placed on LP but I'd prefer if LP voluntarily accept it, just as means of clearing the cloud that is an IBAN when in effect. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 17:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- When DocError is required to leave me alone I will be able to continue to voluntarily ignore the other editor as I've done faithfully since at least January 2015 well before PBS put the IBAN as an ultimatum to DocError. I'd prefer not to have "the cloud that is an IBAN" over my head and I thank the editors who raised this issue at ANi without me bringing it. A 1-way allows DocError to explore other editing interests apart from acting as WP:SPA against me. Thank-you to those that suggested and support it. I don't need an editing restriction to ensure I act "rationally". Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I like the comment earlier about just blocking the person who is causing the problem and leave it at that. This project appears to have straightforward tools to combat disruption and transgression, along with the ability to craft custom solutions as needed. Block this DocumentError for harassment, caution BrightR for filing a bad report. Increase the sanction on either if the behavior is repeated. ValarianB (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I would be inclined to support a one-way interaction ban between DocumentError and Legacypac only as minimal. Frankly, an indef block for DocumentError would be more fitting for someone who is currently only editing wikipedia to pursue a vendetta against another editor, which is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. As for BrightR, having reviewed WP:CIVIL, the appropriate response to me seems to be a sternly worded warning that future frivolous or malicious ANI reports will be responded to with a block. Seth Kellerman (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
discussion of typo
|
|---|
|
- Legacypac literally deleted another editor's comment off my talk page, edited a comment of mine, and struck out or deleted other editors' comments many times before. Just because you don't agree all of the examples provided are valid, doesn't make the fact that many of these are clear WP:TALKO violations and Legacypac was warned about them by admins before. "Frivolous and malicious" is altering other editor's comments and then pretending nothing happened. Bright☀ 10:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Accusation #1 involves an inappropriate comment by DocumentError that is a major reason there is strong support for a one way interaction ban against DocumentError. Accusation #2 is FALSE as described in the first section above by other editors, especially User:PBS. I did not edit BrightR's comment I actually edited User:Beyond My Ken's. name out of an ANi header BrightR created. We can forgive BrightR for misunderstanding the point, but after it has been explained as being within the rules it is not so forgivable for them to make the same accusation again, posted out of context away from the original diffs or the posts by others explaining how they are wrong. BrightR is acting in bad faith at this point in my opinion. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support one-way per the above. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 01:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support one-way per the above and especially the analysis by Legacypac at User_talk:Mkdw#I_went_digging_-_well_only_a_little Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I'm changing my !vote to Oppose because, as a party to the case, I'm concerned my original !vote could sound flippant, which is not my intent. I'm, therefore, !voting Oppose for purposes of good decorum.
Support two-way ban per my comments below. Not sure how I even got dragged into this ANI thread, but, since I am - LP and I only have two pages of edit overlap in the last two years (one user talk page and an ArbCom evidence page) so an IBAN will pretty much have no impact on my (or LegacyPac's) editing ability. Ergo, I don't think either of us would object; at least I don't. Without !voting on a one-way, I guess that's probably no biggie, either. It's all good!DocumentError (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC) - Oppose 1-way IBAN and Support 2-way IBAN - Per Nyttend and QEDK's comments about being easy to game and resulting in escalation in problems. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- I support a one-way IBAN against DocumentError, especially taking note of Legacypac's comment here. Per DocumentError's own comment, it won't inhibit their article work, since "Legacypac and I have not edited any of the same articles or article Talk pages in at least three years". If it does inhibit the kind of thing DocumentError has been doing in the Arthur Rubin RFAR, well, that's what we want. For those who dislike one-way IBANs on principle, if Legacypac should in any way seek contact with DocumentError, or bait them, several admins would be on Legacypac like a ton of bricks. In practice, then, a one-way IBAN works the same way as a two-way IBAN. It just avoids registering a "sanction" against the innocent party, which is desirable IMO. Bishonen | talk 14:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC).
- Support 1-way IBAN as best option, with a weak support for a 2-way if there's no consensus for a 1-way. It is exceedingly hard to assume good faith when an editor emerges from a post-block wikibreak or retirement or whatever you want to call it, and then exclusively pursue matters relating to a person they previously had issues with. I would be less skeptical if there were productive edits that didn't revolve around Legacypac, but there aren't. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support one-way IBAN. This seems the simplest way to resolve matters at present. None of the three editors is blameless here (and hopefully LP and BR will not continue their problematic behavior), but the one who needs to be specifically restrained is DocumentError. Softlavender (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support one-way IBAN - I came across DocumentError at the Arthur Rubin Arbcom case, where one of the key points was an instance of admin abuse suffered by Legacypac. DE actually submitted into evidence a falsified defense of the admin abuse directed at Legacypac. Once I discovered the history and saw that this was obviously a personal grudge, I had to become involved just to provide a firsthand refutation of DE's lies. Arthur's about to get desysopped, but DE actually tried to cover for him when Legacy reported that he had been victimized. I repeat: DE tried to cover for him! He returned with a grudge after taking 2 1/2 years off. That's concerning. Frightening. To think that someone might actually hold a grudge against you for a petty on-wiki dispute, for that long, only to return years later and start harassing you over it. That's terrifying. @QEDK and Mr rnddude: respectfully, I don't think you guys are appreciating the gravity of the situation. This isn't two editors who can't get along. This is straight up harassment. Swarm ♠ 07:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
My 0.02
This will be my one and only comment in this impressively expansive thread as much of the issues seem to be of a separate nature between LP and BrightR which I've been dragged into.
(A) The Current Situation
- On September 24 I posted a comment to BrightR's Talk page.
- Nine minutes later, User:Legacypac deleted it. [141]
- This wasn't a GF copyedit, he simply unilaterally decided my Talk page comment was "inappropriate" (it wasn't) and deleted it.
- I ignored LP's actions and took no action to restore my comment which LP had deleted/edited, even though I would have been within my rights to do so. He seemed very upset so I didn't want to antagonize him.
- As BrightR has noted in their recitation, two different admins have previously given Legacypac "do or die" warnings about editing and deleting other editors Talk page comments. One admin who previously issued a last chance warning to LP is not active this month. The second admin reported they had an edit conflict with LP recently and didn't feel they could take action at this time due to it [142]. BrightR chose to bring this up to one of those admins. During that, I was pinged and I replied to that ping.
- That's the start and end of my involvement in this.
(B) The Previous Situation Described in the IBAN Proposal
- A couple years ago I was blocked by PBS because I would not agree to a voluntary TBAN on topics related to the Syrian Civil War [143]. The reason I would not agree to it is because I had only ever edited one page related to the Syrian Civil War - several months before - so TBAN'ing me, I thought, made no sense (and didn't to User:Reyk [144] and a number of other editors, either). I decided I would decline a "voluntary" TBAN as I was going to be off-Wiki for awhile anyway so it made sense to me that a block wouldn't be much of an issue for me.
- The root of the issue seemed to have originated from a period where my user page was being vandalized with racial slurs [145] by IP editors. After Legacypac declared that I was an "anti-American" [sic] who was ruining his career as (I think?) a real estate agent ("damaging my reputation (which is my job, thank-you very much") [146], I strongly implied LP might be the IP editor in question. It was wrong to do that without conclusive evidence and I later apologized.
- That said, I have no real problem with an IBAN - one way, or two way. Other than last week on BrightR's Talk page, LP and I have exactly one other page of overlap in the last two years (when we both gave evidence at ArbCom). So, an IBAN will have essentially no impact on my editing one way or the other. Ergo, it's fine with me. No objection here. DocumentError (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @ DocumentError you write "A couple years ago I was blocked by PBS because I would not agree to a voluntary TBAN" That is untrue and typical of the dissimulation that you practice (what is not clear to me is if you consciously and deceptively use it as a method of dissembling, or if you really believe what you write).
- In Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive868#Harassment my wording was "I would also advise DocumentError to continue to stay away from the pages covered by ..." that is not a TBAN but advise on how to avoid interaction.
- Your account way not blocked by me because you would not agree to a TBAN. I blocked you account because you prevaricated and would not say whether you agreed or disagreed to a voluntary IBAN of six months duration (see the section "In ref to the ANI" in my talk page archives).
- I warned you at the time "If you reject it, the consequences of that are unpredictable" and here we are with a permanent community IBAN very likely to come into force. In fact back when you started the ANI Harassment section you had just completed a short 36 hour block for by user:Bishonen with the comment "evasiveness is very disruptive" — enough said. -- PBS (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- 1. That is technically a voluntary topic ban. Futhermore, your block summary gives it away;
the six months for the proposed ISIL ban expires put to her/him at the close of an ANI
. - 2. It's not a very voluntary proposal if a) not accepting it is met with threats of consequences, or, b) refusing to answer it, possibly because of the threat of consequences, is met with an indefinite block.
- Why is it that so many people think throwing bricks is an effective way to achieve their goals? Mr rnddude (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on DocumentError's dispute with Legacypac, but I thought what PBS did to him back then was a dick move. I still think so. Reyk YO! 10:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @User:Mr rnddude indefinite blocks are not permanent blocks, and (by 7 March) it became obvious to me that DocumentError was not going to agree (to the ban) or disagree (and hence go back to another ANI), I simply changed the block to end of the day the voluntary iban would have ended (14 June 2015). -- PBS (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- PBS, I brought it up because you were enforcing a, supposedly voluntary TBAN, as part of your block. The other part being the refusal to answer the question, which as I noted in point 2, was possibly due to the threat of consequences that eventually resulted in an
indefinite
block. Now, if you're mentioning this because you commuted the block, I am well aware, that's why I chose the commuted block summary to reference rather than the original indefinite one, which, was rather unhelpful;Until DocumentError agrees to answer a question put to her/him at the close of an ANI
. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- PBS, I brought it up because you were enforcing a, supposedly voluntary TBAN, as part of your block. The other part being the refusal to answer the question, which as I noted in point 2, was possibly due to the threat of consequences that eventually resulted in an
- 1. That is technically a voluntary topic ban. Futhermore, your block summary gives it away;
- @ DocumentError you write "A couple years ago I was blocked by PBS because I would not agree to a voluntary TBAN" That is untrue and typical of the dissimulation that you practice (what is not clear to me is if you consciously and deceptively use it as a method of dissembling, or if you really believe what you write).
I wrote several paragraphs detailing why DocumentError's post is error filled, but deleted them as I don't want to debate someone who plays so fast and loose with facts. Evidence is clear he has been focused almost exclusively on harassing me since at least Jan 2015. An indef 1-way IBAN is preferable to an indef block because DocError will continue to have the ability to edit nearly everywhere and hopefully he will get over his obsession with me. I'd taken his talkpage off my watchlist and pretty much forgotten about him completely until he showed up at Rubin's ArbComm case to criticize me and defend Rubin when Rubin failed to WP:ADMINACCT himself. Legacypac (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Two page-points of interaction in three years - one of which you initiated - seems a very odd way for me to carry-out my "obsession" with you. As Ivanvector noted, I have been very restrained and polite in all my interaction and contact with you here, and elsewhere. I'd ask you could please, in-kind, limit the volume and rate of polemics like I don't want to debate someone who plays so fast and loose with facts and his obsession with me. I don't know if you plan to delete my comment or not as you have with others, however, I would simply ask you please consider its message first. Thank you. I appreciate, in advance, your willingness to work together on this. Best - DocumentError (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Let me be more plain. DocumentError typed a series of untrue statements in this ANi and the easiest thing to show is unwillingness to count correctly.
- 1. Rubin ANi The allegation made by Legacypac that Arthur Rubin's revocation of user rights constituted "unsubstantiated attacks," etc., is not - in my opinion - made with clean hands...,
- 2. BrightR's talk I don't know how long Legacypac will allow this comment to remain on your Talk page before/if he deletes or modifies it I rightly removed this as harassment [147].
- 3. Cryptic's talk another spot he followed me with critical comments plus [148] [149] [150] [151] and that makes three before BrightR started the ANi than
- 4. User Mkdw's talk In the last two years we have had exactly two pages in which there has been any interaction between us
- Four pages is not "Two page-points of interaction" in DocumentError's post right above this one. Add in ANi to get 5 pages which is three more than the two pages he mentions to Mkdw.
- DocumentError initiated interactions 1, 2 and 3 which happened before this ANi but makes his statement in response to Newyorkbrad "the extent of our interaction elsewhere during those years is limited to: (a) discussion related to this ANI thread, and, (b) the Arbcom case against Arthur Rubin" and "...we don't really interact currently" which ignores his posts to BrightR talk and Cryptic talk before the ANi started.
- DocumentError refers to two interactions "one of which you initiated" - but I did not initiate any of the interactions, including the ANi. The only place I posted first was to Mkdw's talk and that was partly about DocumentError's "evidence" not trying interact with DocumentError.
- I don't consider posting incorrect things to be "polite". I could go on refuting his posts, but I much prefer to have nothing to do with him.
- Interestingly he has not addressed the central question of why he came out of retirement specifically to post against me at Rubin's ArbComm and BrightR's talk and Cryptic's talk - he just carries on throwing mud at ANi. [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] It's time to end this. Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- BrightR's talk I don't know how long Legacypac will allow this comment to remain on your Talk page before/if he deletes or modifies it I rightly removed this as harassment [7].
- Wait - you're criticizing me for expressing concern you'd delete my Talk page comment when you then, in fact, actually did delete it? Hmmm.
- Four pages is not "Two page-points of interaction" in DocumentError's post right above this one
- I was actually just going by what you said here: I have not interacted with DocumentError for about 3 years [160] Maybe you misspoke?
- LP - you have been repeatedly told that my submission to ArbCom of rebuttal evidence to evidence you presented in an open case was entirely appropriate (e.g. here by Mkdw [161]). You have had your claim that me doing so was "inappropriate" repeatedly rejected. To then take your argument to ANI after Arbcom has rejected it is the exact definition of forum shopping. I know you don't like the evidence I submitted, and I'm truly sorry it's upset you so very terribly, but to continue to characterize it as "untrue" and "throwing mud" (in the face of multiple people patiently trying to explain to you it's neither of those things) is what I'm talking about when I'm asking you to please tone-down the polemics just a bit. People are allowed to disagree with you, including providing diffs to contextualize their disagreement. That doesn't mean we can't be respectful towards each other and treat each other civilly. Thank you for your understanding. DocumentError (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- BrightR's talk I don't know how long Legacypac will allow this comment to remain on your Talk page before/if he deletes or modifies it I rightly removed this as harassment [7].
- Interestingly he has not addressed the central question of why he came out of retirement specifically to post against me at Rubin's ArbComm and BrightR's talk and Cryptic's talk - he just carries on throwing mud at ANi. [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] It's time to end this. Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: DocumentError, it's plain as day that by pinging Legacypac in your comment on BrightR's talkpage and in the very same comment saying that he would probably delete the comment, you were baiting him. Whether he should have taken the bait is arguable, but the fact that you were the aggressor, with the ping and the aspersions and the thinly disguised dare (not to mention the stalking), is undeniable. Softlavender (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Lucky for everyone ArbComm has moved into decision phase where they have ignored DocumentError's "evidence" and are now voting on accepting findings and solutions consistent with my, and several other editors, submissions. No one said DocErrors posts to the Rubin case are appropriate, all that happened was ArbComm did not delete the submissions. I did not bring the appropriateness of the submissions to ANi, other editors brought that up. Continual misrepresention is not helpful. Further at the top of this section we were promised there would be but one post hy DocumentError here, but, sadly, that was also a misrepresentation. When will an Admin close this unpleasantness up already? Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I appreciate we may need to agree to disagree, Legacypac. I hope you don't mind if I respond to your newest series of allegations with diffs?
- "now voting on accepting findings and solutions consistent with my"
- Actually, it appears your evidence is going to be dismissed as the basis for a finding of fact within the next few minutes when the Clerks wrap-up the closure, no? [162]
- "I did not bring the appropriateness of the submissions to ANi, other editors brought that up."
- Actually, yes, you did: [163]: "If editorial judgement is available please redact most of this statement as well [164] on a similar basis."
- "No one said DocErrors posts to the Rubin case are appropriate"
- Actually, yes, they did. Mkdw responded to your specific objection by counseling you that: "DocumentError is addressing Arthur Rubin's conduct which is defined within the case scope." [165]
- Thanks! DocumentError (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I also said that DocumentError's submission to Arbcom was appropriate. If I didn't say it explicitly here, I have now said so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I appreciate we may need to agree to disagree, Legacypac. I hope you don't mind if I respond to your newest series of allegations with diffs?
- I don't consider pinging an editor "aggressive" but a customary requirement of WP:NOTIFY. As for the alleged, "stalking" - I'm not sure where you're getting that? Per Legacypac [166], he's had no interaction with me - prior to this week - in the last three years. This week, this is the extent of our interaction: [167]. That's a very unconventional interpretation of stalking, but maybe you have some diffs to support your allegation which I'm missing? DocumentError (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Lucky for everyone ArbComm has moved into decision phase where they have ignored DocumentError's "evidence" and are now voting on accepting findings and solutions consistent with my, and several other editors, submissions. No one said DocErrors posts to the Rubin case are appropriate, all that happened was ArbComm did not delete the submissions. I did not bring the appropriateness of the submissions to ANi, other editors brought that up. Continual misrepresention is not helpful. Further at the top of this section we were promised there would be but one post hy DocumentError here, but, sadly, that was also a misrepresentation. When will an Admin close this unpleasantness up already? Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
"Hounding"
Since an editor invoked the word "stalking" (ed: but probably meant "hounding") I've noticed two other editors re-purpose it - sans diffs - as fait accompli. I think this has probably become Fact By Process of Repetition at this point (and I should have commented in the first few days of this ANI being opened to prevent that from happening) but, as a formality, I'd like to make sure the actual diffs are entered on the permanent record:
- Per Legacypac himself [168], he's had no interaction with me - prior to this week - in the last three years ("I have not interacted with DocumentError for about 3 years.")
- This week, this is the extent of our interaction: [169].
For further record of posterity, neither I nor Legacypac opened this ANI. The editor who opened the ANI (BrightR) presented a charge against Legacypac that is customarily subject to a perfunctory, long block, that is, that Legacypac was editing and deleting others Talk comments on pages other than his own, like here [170], and was doing so in violation of his two previous "last chances" originating from a pattern of WP:TPO violations he had engaged in: ([171] "Such edits are disruptive, and can lead to blocks or other negative actions. Please do not edit the talk page comments of others in such a way again"" & [172] "Do something like this again and I will block you from editing."). It was only at that point that I was suddenly pinged into this ANI and the conversation abruptly redirected to the un-diffed allegation of my "stalking" Legacypac. And, while User:Newyorkbrad and User:Ivanvector initially responded saying they saw no such thing, this was quickly overcome by the influx of several editors from the Friends & Family plan to which I haven't subscribed yet ([173], [174]) repeating the word "stalking" without diffs until it was simply a point of common knowledge and could be accepted as fact. DocumentError (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- For the record, I never opined one way or the other on the merits of the complaints here, and I haven't looked at them. (That is deliberate, in case any part of the broader situation involved here were to come to arbitration.) What I did say was that the discussion shouldn't start reaching conclusions about a potential sanction involving you until you had a reasonable opportunity to respond, which you now have done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad - sorry, I didn't mean you, I meant to refer to BURob's comment vis a vis Legacypac's WP:TPO violations. Your name was copy-pasted by accident and I've struck it. I apologize for the error on my part. DocumentError (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- For the record, I never opined one way or the other on the merits of the complaints here, and I haven't looked at them. (That is deliberate, in case any part of the broader situation involved here were to come to arbitration.) What I did say was that the discussion shouldn't start reaching conclusions about a potential sanction involving you until you had a reasonable opportunity to respond, which you now have done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Please don't use "stalking" when you mean WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, Ivanvector, you're correct. I was responding to the terminology two other editors have used in this thread but I should have corrected their errors in my explanatory to invoke appropriate terminology instead of just putting the word stalking in "quotes". I've added an edit to my initial message, above. DocumentError (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Persistent OR issues with Gianluigi02
- Gianluigi02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Gianluigi02 appears unable or unwilling to properly cite sources and to follow WP:NOR. This user persistently adds content to terrorism related lists where the sources given do not support inclusion or do not support ascribing an event to a particular group like ISIL. For example, yesterday Gianluigi02 are an entry [175] and claimed the Taliban were suspected. The source given doesn't ascribe the event to the Taliban, in fact it didn't event mention the Taliban at all and says, "No one immediately claimed responsibility for the attacks in Herat or Kapisa.
" See also Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_September_2017#Gianluigi02
Gianluigi02 has been warned about a dozen times on their user talk page for this behavior. They were once blocked by NeilN for this very behavior. They have never once responded to the warnings or block. In fact, they fail to comminate; of their 2000+ edits on the English Wikipedia, only one did they ever use a talk page ([176]).
Whether CIR or DIS issues, this user is causing problems and not showing any signs of change. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Been nearly 24 hours. Pinging Doug Weller who is at least familiar with this. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: Their last edit did have a source, but it was the Daily Mail and was reverted. I've told them they must respond here. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Their edits often have sources, but those sources most of the times don't support the text of the edit or, as with the most recent edit, do not use reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: I know, which is why I told them to respond here. I'll watch to see what they do. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: It appears they are not interested in communicating since they've edited again but not replied here ([177]). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: and no response here or at their talk page. Blocked for 72 hours. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: It appears they are not interested in communicating since they've edited again but not replied here ([177]). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: I know, which is why I told them to respond here. I'll watch to see what they do. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Their edits often have sources, but those sources most of the times don't support the text of the edit or, as with the most recent edit, do not use reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
CANVASSing by AussieLegend
In a follow-up discussion to an RfC at Talk:Family Guy, I pointed out to AussieLegend that supporters of his proposal had not opposed other suggestions. In response, AussieLegend posted the following to four users who had indicated support for his proposal: User:SMcCandlish, User:QEDK, User:A D Monroe III, and User:Beyond My Ken:
- Please accept my apologies for disturbing you but I am trying hard to work towards a resolution at the discussion at Talk:Family Guy. However, there are "issues". Earlier, you indicated support for either "animated sitcom for adults" (with appropriate wikilinks) or "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences" as the new text. Could you please visit the discussion again and confirm whether or not you are still willing to accept this wording? Thankyou. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
—Both wordings quoted are ones AussieLegend has been promoting, and indicate a clear case of WP:CANVASSing to influence the outcome of the discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- sigh! Please review the RfC at Talk:Family Guy#RfC: Remove "adult" as a descriptor from the opening sentence and the discussion that lead to it. Curly Turky has been resisting the outcome of the RfC, which was to remove the word "adult" and come up with some alternate wording. We started off with the alternate wording "animated sitcom for adults" which progressed to variants of "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences". As explained here, in the current discussion there have been 11 participants. Of those, six expressed a preference for one or both of the proposed wordings while three made no comment on wording, one made general comments but nothing specific and another only suggested that "Adult animation" may be a suitable wikilink. That all six of the editors who commented on the wording expressed support for one of the proposed options, including Curly Turky,[178] is inconsequential to Curly Turky; he claims there is
nothing like a consensus
.[179] Given his opposition and denial, I felt it appropriate to ask those who had expressed support whether they still felt that way. Note that I asked them to confirmwhether or not
(i.e. they were given the option to state either support or opposition) they still supported the proposed wording. Also, only actual participants of the discussion were asked. Opinions were not sought from anyone else. If we want to talk about canvassing, let's look at the opening sentence of the discussion when he pinged everyone except me and then, as an afterthought, used a fake excuse to justify doing so.[180]
- Finally, I will point out that this entire situation has arisen because Curly Turky took exception to the word "adult", which he equates with "porn".[181] Personally, I find the whole thing to be right in WP:LAME territory, even if it didn't involve an edit war. Curly Turky seems to be working hard to avoid a positive outcome and his report here is an example of this, as is his latest response at the discussion,[182] which avoids answering a simple question. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- I will assess the whole situation and offer my full opinion sometime, but for now, I feel there was canvassing, primarily because he chose to inform just the four whose views aligned with his but I wouldn't regard it as just that because also to note, I think we'd comment on the discussion anyway (atleast me, because it's on my watchlist) and also my views didn't exactly align with the alleged canvasser's so that's there too. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 14:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
He chose to inform just the four whose views aligned with his
is rather misleading. Other than Curly Turky, who was still very actively involved with the discussion and therefore did not need to have his preference confirmed, I asked ALL of the editors who had made comment on the specific wording proposals. The remaining editors were:
- Damotclese - Only involvement was to agree with me regarding the initial pinging of participants.[183] If I canvassed surely this would be one person I'd seek out?
- Izno - Did not participate in the discussion at all. Just collapsed a part of the discussion.[184]
- Montanabw - made some suggestions but wasn't clear on the wording and stated no preference as to precise wording. He was clear that he was flexible on wording.[185]
- Softlavender only suggested that "Adult animation" may be a suitable wikilink.[186]
- WhatamIdoing Made comment about Curly Turky not pinging me, reformatted some text and suggested that Curly Turky boldly add the information to the body of the article, which Curly Turky refused to do.[187]
- If the aim had been to canvass then there were clearly others "on my side" but that obviously wasn't the aim. It was simply to obtain clarification of the discussion participants feeling on the proposed wording as it had changed. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Isn't the obvious solution to change the lead to "...an American animated sitcom aimed at adults..." Now have you heard? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Answer: Already analyzed among all available approaches, and assessed as awkwardly, annoyingly alliterative. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 16:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've been in the thick of this, trying to moderate and produce a compromise. There are two issues at stake: 1) what exact wording to use, since using "is an adult animated sitcom" might imply something X-rated to some readers (this was the conclusion of the RfC above that discussion), and 2) whether to move this demographic out of the lead sentence, especially since some people wnat to expand on it with additional sources that may indicate a broader intended audience, and already-found sources that indicate is has a broader audience whatever the authorial/studio intent might be. I think that if some variant of the wording AussieLegend prefers (e.g. "targeted at an adult audience") is used, but moved to a second sentence specifically about demographics and marketing, that the entire issue goes away. For reasons I outlined here, I think the testiness of the discussion (an admin already remarked at the RfC that a WP:IBAN might be in order) has led both parties to insist on additional things they don't really care that much about and to just argue for the sake of arguing, e.g. to retain some wording like this in the lead sentence no matter what, versus not having it anywhere in the lead at all, and so on.
It looks to me like AussieLegend notified only the specific parties for the reason that their, and only their, opinions for or against some version of AussieLegend's wording were being challenged by CurlyTurkey. While this could have had a canvassing effect, for my part I showed up and just re-urged compromise.
PS: It's routine to do a follow-on RfC to resolve the questions not resolved in the original RfC. I've put an RfC tag on the follow-on discussion at Talk:Family guy#Participant survey, notified all the earlier-RfC participants not notified yet, and also posted a pointer to the discussion at Talk:The Simpsons, since similar wording at the The Simpsons has been the subject of repeated bouts of flat-out revert-warring. Hopefully this is enough to foster a clean and quiet resolution. :-)
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 17:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)- SMcCandlish has indeed been a level head in all this, and his contributions are appreciated. However, there are a couple of minor points that I feel the need to clear-up:
an admin already remarked at the RfC that a WP:IBAN
- that was WhatamIdoing, who is not an administrator. Curly Turkey and I have edited quite a few of the same pages but, as far as I can remember, until this discussion I don't think we've ever had any direct interaction. Frankly, I don't think I want to again.has led both parties to insist on additional things they don't really care that much about and to just argue for the sake of arguing
- not the case on my part. I was happy for the RfC closer to implement his outcome but Curley Turkey just seems to want to drag this on, and on, reverting the closer's edits. We seem to have some wording that multiple editors are happy with and I'm just waiting for Curley Turkey to explain why that's not what we should use. I've had to ask twice now,[188][189] this time. In short I simply don't see the advantage in breaking one simple sentence into multiple.It looks to me like AussieLegend notified only the specific parties for the reason that their, and only their, opinions for or against some version of AussieLegend's wording were being challenged by CurlyTurkey
- As I've said, I asked all editors who had commented on specific wording. I didn't see the point in annoying editors who had made no comment on the wording, or no comment at all.
- Otherwise, SMcCandlish seems correct. Hopefully, the new RfC will resolve issues but, as I indicated on SMcCandlish's talk page, I have my doubts that we can come to a quiet resolution. And yes, I still think the whole thing is lame. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- My mistake. I didn't realize WhatamIdoing isn't an admin; I confused that editor's official WMF role with being an admin (I have a fairly dim and short-term memory for usernames, roles, and who said what). (I cultivate this selective forgetfulness on purpose, since it thwarts grudge-matching and drama.) On the second point, I don't see that you've been responsive to CurlyTurkey's questions about why this has to be in the lead sentence, just as CT has been sending mixed signal about whether it should at least remain in the lead section. These seem like isometric "political" pushing to me on both sides (i.e. WP:WINNING). I'm fairly certain you could live with the demographic material in a second or later sentence and CT could live with it in the lead section somewhere, and no one else will GaF. :-) Anyway, I took the time to "annoy" the other previous participants to come back and help resolve the matter. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 18:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC). Revised, 21:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see that you've been responsive to CurlyTurkey's questions about why this has to be in the lead sentence
- Actually I specifically saidKeeping it in the lead sentence is consistent with WP:TVLEAD and the way that we write TV articles. Moving it somewhere else just leads to writing multiple words when a couple will do. Why overcomplicate the text when simplicity works? You're not being paid by the letter.
[190]Anyway, I took the time to "annoy" the other previous participants
- I resisted doing that because of the possible ramifications, for example such as the response from Edgarde, who wroteI don't wish to argue this issue any further and request no more pings
. Some people just want to comment in an RfC and have no further involvement. Edgarde is obviusly one of those. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)- Damotclese, too, now that I look at some of the "venty" posts on that page. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 09:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- My mistake. I didn't realize WhatamIdoing isn't an admin; I confused that editor's official WMF role with being an admin (I have a fairly dim and short-term memory for usernames, roles, and who said what). (I cultivate this selective forgetfulness on purpose, since it thwarts grudge-matching and drama.) On the second point, I don't see that you've been responsive to CurlyTurkey's questions about why this has to be in the lead sentence, just as CT has been sending mixed signal about whether it should at least remain in the lead section. These seem like isometric "political" pushing to me on both sides (i.e. WP:WINNING). I'm fairly certain you could live with the demographic material in a second or later sentence and CT could live with it in the lead section somewhere, and no one else will GaF. :-) Anyway, I took the time to "annoy" the other previous participants to come back and help resolve the matter. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 18:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC). Revised, 21:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: this isn't the place to discuss the content dispute. I didn't seek support for my position nor opposition for AussieLegend's in the report. This is about the canvassing, which is the only thing that would concern ANI. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Definitely canvassing Looking at the RFC comments by the users in question, it's obvious that AL is canvassing users who definitely did not specifically support their wording. QEDK just said they supported a change from the status quo, presumably per CT's original proposal. Monroe explicitly supported
"targeting teens and adults" or equivalent
. BMK actually opposed the proposal to change the status quo and clarified in his third comment that "for adults" would work as well. SMcC presented a couple of alternate proposals himself, so claiming that he explicitly supported AL's exact wording is wrong, although more than a month later I wouldn't blame SMcC for forgetting that that is the case (read: AL's message was misleading, perhaps deliberately so). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)- I don't oppose the specific wording that was at issue, I just prefer a minor copyedit to it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 00:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- What you support is not at issue—the wording of the message advertises AussieLegend's intentions to CANVASS. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm just clarifying Hijiri's assessment of what I was/am supporting. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 09:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- What you support is not at issue—the wording of the message advertises AussieLegend's intentions to CANVASS. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the RFC comments by the users in question, it's obvious that AL is canvassing users who definitely did not specifically support their wording
- That doesn't make sense. Why would one canvass users who did not support the wording? Wouldn't it make more sense to canvass users who supported the position? In any case, as I have said over and over, I sought clarification from ALL editors who had commented on the wording and asked them to clarify their current opinion as the initial text had changed. This was necessary because Curley Turkey was ignoring the discussion and using comments in the now ended RfC to justify his position that the text should move. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)- I should add that Hijiri88 is obviously looking at the RfC and not comments made in the subsequent discussion. In the RfC Monroe did indeed support ""targeting teens and adults" but in the subsequent discussion said
I wouldn't bother to object to "for/toward adults", or adding "and teens", in any form
. Similarly, BMK wrote in the subsequent discussionAgree with the above "animated sitcom for adults"
, which is the wording used in the note I left. SMcCandlish also wroteUse "animated sitcom for adults".
The message was not misleading at all, it is supported by what editors actually said. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- I don't oppose the specific wording that was at issue, I just prefer a minor copyedit to it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 00:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Does it matter? Don't forget that Wikipedia is volunteer work, editors agree to RFC calls which take their time, and most (if not all) of us have real jobs, so tagging editors just because you feel that your "side" in an RFC debate was not fully covered fairly is an imposition upon volunteers. The issue of "canvassing" is utterly irrelevant when it happens. Nobody dies, it's not the end of the world and yet canvassing happens a lot. Most editors engaged in Wikiwar accept the RFC comments and move on professionally, they don't go back and complain about "canvassing" and they don't waste editor's time pinging previous editors. Point being, stop accusing people of canvassing, please, and move on professionally. If you can not, please leave me out of your petty disputes. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- As one of the "canvassed" editors, this pretty much describes what I feel about it. I found it useful to be told there was still a discussion ongoing on the talk page (which I do not have watchlisted), and that my support was not clear to others. Frankly, while I did use AussieLegend's wording, if I had not agreed with it, rest assured that I am fully capable of writing my own. Granted, a neutral comment along the lines of "A discussion you may be interested in is taking place on Talk:Family Guy" would have been preferable, policy-wise, but either it or the actual comment would have had the same effect on me. For this reason, I would say that I'm opposed to any sanctions being imposed on AussieLegend. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- My attempt to broker compromise hasn't been very effective. — SMcCandlish ☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 23:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Sadly, that's very true. Attempts to get Curly Turkey to provide a proper draft of his proposed wording have failed. Instead the responses are vitriole and personal attacks,[191][192] despite SMcCandlish's attempts to lighten the mood.[193] --AussieLegend (✉) 05:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Why is this even in the first sentence of these articles. Hard to reach a consensus for awkward openings like this. RfC should have a normal lead sentence to ponder over.--Moxy (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Ankurc.17
Hi. Please can someone block this user. I've asked them not to post on my talkpage, but they keep reverting a comment I've removed. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Mention the incident properly. You accused me of not knowing English or for that matter that I edited something when it was already announced yet you reverted it back. This is not the first time you have done this and am pretty sure you have harassed others before as well. Just because someone is finally standing up to you that you are now complaining about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankurc.17 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Per WP:REMOVED, Lugnuts is allowed to remove posts from their own talk page. Stop edit warring and leave it alone. If you do it again, I'll block you myself. Katietalk 17:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Mention the incident properly. You accused me of not knowing English or for that matter that I edited something when it was already announced yet you reverted it back. This is not the first time you have done this and am pretty sure you have harassed others before as well. Just because someone is finally standing up to you that you are now complaining about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankurc.17 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Katie - I knew there was something about removing posts from my own talkpage, but I couldn't find it. Happy for this to be closed. Thanks again. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes Lugnuts has a free pass to be uncivil. Legacypac (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Considering Lugnuts believes that Wikipedia trumps medical attention over one's pets, you got off light. Blackmane (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
8 reverts in 24 hours...2600:1017:B01B:E3F6:191B:A253:5EBC:ADF (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Edit warring to remove notices from his own talk page? I won't speak for everyone, but I'm sure not going to block him for it. GoldenRing (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, but edit warring to restore a comment on someone else's talk page even after you've been told that they have a right to remove it would seem to be a blockable offense. Certainly people have been blocked for doing so on my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Walter Görlitz
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to raise concern about this editor, who is uncivil and using bullying techniques.
The user added the verifiability banner to the page Shania Now Tour. Every piece of information in the article was sourced at that time, by reliable sources, see [194]. I reverted the edit, stating as such. The user in question reverted my edit, then I reverted again, asking what needed to be sourced. The user reverted again without responding. I left the page as is, not wanting to start an edit war. The user then left a message on my talk page, which had nothing to do with verifiabilty, at which point I suggested that the user was engaging in disruptive cite-tagging, likely because the user attempted to have the article in question deleted, and was unsuccessful. I moved the discussion to the article's Talk:Shania Now Tour where I very clearly asked that user to identify what needed to be verified. The user just copied and pasted what they wrote on my talk page. I calmly pressed the issue, at which point the user finally removed the verifiablity banner (likely realizing they were in the wrong all along) but continued to leave condescending and insulting messages. I left the discussion and the project. After two weeks, I returned giving the user the opportunity to rewrite their message in which they call me stupid and tell me to shut up. The user would not rewrite or strike out that message and instead "aplogized" while calling me incompetent and said I have no place on the project. Thankyoubaby (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Of for crying out loud. At the time I added the template it was required because, while every piece was sourced, the content needed additional references per WP:NTOUR. I finally changed it. The editor was terse and obtuse in his responses and if this many words were written on the talk page to elucidate, there would be no offense taken by me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- (ec) This edit by Walter Görlitz concerns me:
Not only is the language combative and confrontational, but it flies in the face of the fact that, as Thankyoubaby notes, Gorlitz' previous replies had been non-responsive to the question about what in the article needed to be sourced, thereby justifying his clean-up tag. The reply he made, which concerned notability [195], was not responsive to the question asked [196], and, indeed, the notability question had already been answered by the AfD. It seems if anyone had a right to be short-tempered, it was Thankyoubany, not Walter Gorlitz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)You seem incapable of understanding logic. You complained. I allowed you to do the right thing and decide whether you wanted a notability tag or the sources tag. The idea was to shut you up. I see it didn't work. Which would you like? Either answer or shut up. Cheers
- Concur with BMK. No one here is a mind-reader. Just because an editor feels certain there's a sourcing problem of some obscure kind doesn't mean they can revert-war and be hostile about it, all while failing to explain the nature of the alleged issue. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 00:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. I wasn't trying for a hostile edit war though and I did think I explained the nature of the issue. At that point I was very angry, and I compromised and (somewhat) apologized, but the sources needed to be provided. They are there now. Likely not because of my tagging though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: wrote in his edit summary on the article, "survived AfD, so notability tag is not appropriate " There were clearly other editors who felt it did not meet notability criteria—WP:NCONCERT or WP:NTOUR—or was WP:TOOSOON. And the AfD was closed as no consensus (non-admin closure) with only the notifying editor here voting for a clean keep. Is that really surviving the AfD? That four editors saw the article as problematic one month ago is why it was added and others had questions about whether it belonged. While I didn't agree with Power~enwiki's non-admin closure, I knew it would eventually become notable and so didn't reopen it. The tag was added with valid reasons. The tag is no longer valid and I should have probably removed it when the UK tours were added as the beeb covered it quite well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- If the article was not deleted (it wasn't) and is still in the encyclopedia (it is) then it clearly "survived" AfD, as there was no consensus to delete it. That some editors expressed notability concerns about it is not relevant to that, as even kept articles are likely to have comments expressing those kinds of opinions. At the very least, the "no consensus" at AfD should have alerted you to the fact that the putative lack of notability was not sufficient for the article to be tagged for notability, and was more of an issue for discussion on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- That the article was closed by a non-admin without due cause and the closure was not contested is clear. There was a greater consensus to remove it from the project a month ago than there was to keep it. That more than half of the !votes questioned its notability is the only reason that it should have been tagged and that the discussion was had on the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- If you're so certain that many editors would support a notability tag, get a consensus for one on the article talk page. Seems simple enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- That the article was closed by a non-admin without due cause and the closure was not contested is clear. There was a greater consensus to remove it from the project a month ago than there was to keep it. That more than half of the !votes questioned its notability is the only reason that it should have been tagged and that the discussion was had on the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- If the article was not deleted (it wasn't) and is still in the encyclopedia (it is) then it clearly "survived" AfD, as there was no consensus to delete it. That some editors expressed notability concerns about it is not relevant to that, as even kept articles are likely to have comments expressing those kinds of opinions. At the very least, the "no consensus" at AfD should have alerted you to the fact that the putative lack of notability was not sufficient for the article to be tagged for notability, and was more of an issue for discussion on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Concur with BMK. No one here is a mind-reader. Just because an editor feels certain there's a sourcing problem of some obscure kind doesn't mean they can revert-war and be hostile about it, all while failing to explain the nature of the alleged issue. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 00:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- (ec) This edit by Walter Görlitz concerns me:
- Oh, I recognize this user name. The dude's extreme sourcing pedantry and article-hovering drove me from an article I was planning to substantively add to, and source, and it actually was the final straw for me giving up on WP... (mostly I was successful but there's always some little edits a person wants to make, so up goes another account where I don't have to make my friends wonder if I'm back or not). Aureliano Babilonia (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- This doesn't surprise me; I'm very well aware of what Walter does. First of all, every edit I've seen from him in the mainspace is very constructive and utilizes his knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and Manual of Style. If it were me, I'd say that this is more of the incompetence of the reporter that created this rather than Walter's actions here. Walter's edits on the article were just fine; the talk page discussion ended with a civil change of template, which was later removed as the article survived an AfD. In short, I wouldn't call this bullying, but rather it's Walter Görlitz helping a new user understand how Wikipedia's guidelines work. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- "Either answer or shut up." Very helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, the actions seem fine, the tone not so much, nor the refusal to provide a rationale. Given this discussion, I trust the approach will be adjusted and not be an issue in future interactions. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 06:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- It is indeed to be hoped. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- It will be. But yet, Thankyoubaby never explained which template was preferred and I did give valid reasons for either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Walter Görlitz, you wrote above, "At that point I was very angry, and I compromised and (somewhat) apologized, but the sources needed to be provided." My sincere advice to you is to never edit Wikipedia when you are "very angry", and never edit with the intention of getting other editors to "shut up". If you are angry, please stop editing Wikipedia until you are completely calm and in a collaborative mood. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. I will certainly attempt to do so going forward. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- After a rocky start, my compliments to Walter Görlitz for his response to this thread. Well done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. I will certainly attempt to do so going forward. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Walter Görlitz, you wrote above, "At that point I was very angry, and I compromised and (somewhat) apologized, but the sources needed to be provided." My sincere advice to you is to never edit Wikipedia when you are "very angry", and never edit with the intention of getting other editors to "shut up". If you are angry, please stop editing Wikipedia until you are completely calm and in a collaborative mood. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- It will be. But yet, Thankyoubaby never explained which template was preferred and I did give valid reasons for either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- It is indeed to be hoped. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, the actions seem fine, the tone not so much, nor the refusal to provide a rationale. Given this discussion, I trust the approach will be adjusted and not be an issue in future interactions. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 06:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- "Either answer or shut up." Very helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- This doesn't surprise me; I'm very well aware of what Walter does. First of all, every edit I've seen from him in the mainspace is very constructive and utilizes his knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and Manual of Style. If it were me, I'd say that this is more of the incompetence of the reporter that created this rather than Walter's actions here. Walter's edits on the article were just fine; the talk page discussion ended with a civil change of template, which was later removed as the article survived an AfD. In short, I wouldn't call this bullying, but rather it's Walter Görlitz helping a new user understand how Wikipedia's guidelines work. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
While not a great article, it's probably not worth having the load of editorialising that I just edited out, changing what sources say to defend Myanmar, e.g "The government is accused of actively promoting Theravada Buddhism (practiced by 90% of the population) over other religions, particularly among members of ethnic minorities. Even there are some accusations that Christian and Islamic groups continued to have trouble obtaining permission to repair existing places of worship or build new ones, but it is totally wrong information." with the bold text being the additions added over the last year. More eyes? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Uncle dan is home (talk · contribs)
This is a request for opinions about a case of potential long-term abuse of Wikipedia:Reference desk. The reference desks are relatively relaxed about enforcing Wikipedia policies, which is understandable. However, the user in question here has been posting repetitively for the past one year borderline highly contentious open-ended questions with mostly just one line (there are so many of them, you can literally just pick any posts from the log). While this kind of conduct is against some of the principles of the reference desk (such as we are not a substitute for actually doing any original research required, or as a free source of ideas.
), there doesn't seem to be a policy that regulates these kinds of usage.
Ever since creating an account in June 2016, the user in question has made 257 edits with 0 edits to the mainspace (top edits). Several users including myself have tried to engage with them to discuss this problematic editing behaviour but to no avail. My question is, can there possibly be a consensus to block this kind of user for being clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia? Regards, Alex ShihTalk 09:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like a blatant and obvious case of WP:NOTHERE, and he's had several warnings about trolling the reference desk already. Indeffed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Now there's a consensus for you :) — fortunavelut luna 10:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- He had me at "0 edits to mainspace". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was expecting a barrage of "show me the disruption" but I guess I managed to serenade. Alex ShihTalk 11:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- He had me at "0 edits to mainspace". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Now there's a consensus for you :) — fortunavelut luna 10:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- First NOTHERE is not policy. Secondly, the first line of the reference desk remit is: "The Wikipedia reference desk works like a library reference desk. Ask a question here and Wikipedia volunteers will try to answer it." - the reference desk is not here *solely* to enable 'building an encyclopedia' it is a reference desk in order to direct people to references either on-site or off-site. Its a given that the reference desk will be answering questions from non-wikipedians. If the goal is to ban people who ask contentious questions - then you should also be banning all the editors who either given non-answers or treat it as a talking shop. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Only in death: How about WP:FORUM #4? This is not about the contentious questions, but about the long term misuse of volunteer time in asking questions that are borderline trolling. Alex ShihTalk 11:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Causes of sexual violence If we have an article on it, its a valid question. The correct response is 'Here are some references from our closest article on the subject' and close the request as answered. I should also point out the last line of WP:FORUM #4 actually refers you to the reference desk to ask questions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Only in death: How about WP:FORUM #4? This is not about the contentious questions, but about the long term misuse of volunteer time in asking questions that are borderline trolling. Alex ShihTalk 11:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- A couple of months ago, questions were being raised about Uncle Dan as to whether he might be a sock of a banned user. Now that he's blocked, maybe it doesn't matter. But he did seem to raise a lot of debate-worthy questions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- And herein lies the problem. Regular ref desk editors treat the reference desk as a forum for debate and discussion, which is not what it is meant to be used for. Blocking someone who is merely conforming to the standard practice at the ref desk just because you don't like the questions they are asking is ridiculous. Provide refs for the question asked, close question. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Possibly a block was needed, but NOTHERE is certainly the wrong reason. We can't set a precedent that it is somehow against policy to only particpate at the ref desks, and never edit the mainspace. That is simply not true. I don't know what Ritchie's intentions were - maybe this was really because of disruption of the ref desks - but it sure sounds (here and in the block log and in the comments on the user's talk page) like the rationale boils down to "doesn't edit the mainspace". Frankly, I don't think I want him near the mainspace.
The actual problem appears to be the claim that he's disrupting the ref desks with lots and lots of dumb and or obnoxious and/or trolling questions, and has ignored previous requests to rein it in. If that's what's happening then I have no problem with a block. But as the blocking admin, Ritchie needs to at least confirm that he's reviewed the questions, believes they're disruptive, and then clarify the block so the blocked editor and the admins reviewing the unblock request are all on the same page. Right now, it appears a reviewing admin is asking whether or not he plans to start editing articles. The actual thing that needs to be addressed is, is he disrupting the ref desks? And if so, is he going to stop? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- In my opinion, he was disrupting the reference desks with questions that appeared to be intended to cause controversy. It is true that some regular editors treat the reference desks as a forum for debate and discussion, but most of the questions that are asked and answered at least can be seen as requests for answers, rather than just efforts to cause controversy. He was a problematic editor. It is true that the reference desks have a problematicity problem. I think that he needed blocking, but since he was blocked for a reason that isn't applicable to what he was doing, I would suggest that he be unblocked for now and given another chance, and, if he continues to ask disruptive questions, he can be either blocked again or topic-banned from the reference desks. That is my suggestion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
FYI: [197]. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Aiden James
An anonymous IP (whom I'm presuming to be Aiden James himself, given the advertorial overtones of what's happening, but can't prove it) is persistently editing Aiden James with improperly written advertorial content about his newest single — namely, he's trying to not just use the media coverage to source that the song exists, the way it's supposed to be done, but to directly use the media coverage to source the fact that the media coverage exists: he's expanding the already-existing and already-sourced mention of the song's release to include followup information like "then Billboard covered it! (source: the same Billboard article that was already being used to source the song, and thus isn't really its own separate piece of information in its own right) then individual radio stations added it to their playlists! (sources: the front pages of those radio stations' websites)". And he's writing the whole thing not in complete sentences, but in proselined sentence fragments that aren't consistent with encyclopedic writing style.
The problem here is that I've already removed the advertorial bumf twice today (as well as once last week), but he keeps reverting it back into the article again — meaning I'm going to trip the WP:3RR wire if I remove it again today. Is anybody willing to assist? Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- AidenJames (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Neskolka (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Both accounts created Jan. 2, 2016. Article has been semi-protected.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Logosncompanies
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Logosncompanies is constantly adding unsourced content, refuses to heed warnings from other users, will not communicate, as a matter of fact has asked do not add content.
to their talk page. Definitely showing WP:SPA who is WP:NOTHERE. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked 72 hours for disruptive editing.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)- Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Input at Template_talk:Infobox_World_Heritage_Site#RfC:_revert_back_to_non-Wikidata_version.3F would be appreciated, please, as @Fram and I seem to be talking past each other. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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. [198]). 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @WJBscribe:, I would support an undoing of the block extension. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- @WJBscribe:, I would support an undoing of the block extension. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- That is big picture stuff. See:
- Talk:Herbalism#Explicit_reference_to_herbalism a huge time suck related to the February edit warring case.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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: [199], [200]. But shortly later, at Talk:Glyphosate, they became very IDHT and battlegroundy: [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207]. 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)
- 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)
Edit War in African admixture in Europe page, 2 users involved and allegedly 3RR rule broken
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User TechnicianGB began an edit war a few days back with an anonymous IP on the article African admixture in Europe. I am not fully aware of the substance of the dispute but I did notice multiple breach of Wikipedia rules. The version of the article which he began an edit war with had been stable for 2015. Requests were made by the editor he was in conflict with to follow WP:BRD and bring to talk page. I eventually intervened and opened a discussion on talk page, simultaneously reverting his edits a couple of times.
My attempts to encourage the editor to follow WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:STABLE on the article talk page, his talk page and my talk page can be seen here:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803652117&oldid=803641370
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803739481&oldid=803699189
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TechnicianGB&diff=803740175&oldid=803573991
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TechnicianGB&diff=803748020&oldid=803744363
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Farangizsaifi&diff=803749286&oldid=803749074
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TechnicianGB&diff=803749397&oldid=803748142
Note the last highly cordial message he called a "Personal Attack".
Excluding a couple of self reverts, the editor breached the WP:3RR by reverting a two year old stable version 4 times in 24 hours.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803745940&oldid=803745847
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803744050&oldid=803739340
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803698870&oldid=803652117
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803641325&oldid=803616534
Upon his fourth revert, he instantly requested CambridgeBayWeather to protect the page.
It was only upon his new version contested by other editors was protected that he accepted using the talk page as discussion:
- This is not true. I wrote in the talk page because you accused me there and the page was already protected (not semi-protected) and there aren't another "editors" but a single anonymous IP. --TechnicianGB (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
He however still did not accept that the issue I had was not with the content of his edit but the manner of his editing. I thereby requested him to be patient and wait for editors he is in conflict with to respond as per WP:BRD.
- This is not true, again. There are NOT another editors but a single anonymous IP which has the same writing style and edits the same or very similar articles than you do, but this is another story. You even admitted to not check the sources or my editions, as I aware you to check them because I was just writing the factual information and deleting some data which wasn't backed up by any source. You didn't care but just kept reverting my changes, exactly as that anonymous IP did yesterday... --TechnicianGB (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I request this editor to be made understand that he is in breach of a number of editing rules, namely WP:BRD, WP:STABLE, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:3RR: That he cannot change a 2-year stable version against the criteria of other editors in breach of 3RR rule and make his new version be the precondition for any discussion. This is not adequate behavior on Wikipedia. On my side it is not a content dispute, since I am have not read closely the sources/matter at hand, although I suspect WP:NPOV editing by the combative style and the way the editor has changed his "new version" when confronted with sources by the person he initiatated the edit war with. I hope Admins can have a look at this. There was no need for an edit war on a topic which can be calmly discussed on talk and consensus reached, as long as it is explained to this editor how to edit constructively. I take it up with Admins and will no longer be involved. Farangizsaifi (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I just warned today this user for breaking the 3RR rule and to check the sources for a constructive edition on the page and now it's accusing me of doing it, lol. I'm telling him that the 3 RR doesn't count for self reversions or for reversions of 3rd party anonymous IPs but he is just in the "this is my version mood" and doesn't want to hear nothing.
After those 3 reversions I warned him and then I proposed the page for protection:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803652117&oldid=803641370
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803739340&oldid=803698870
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803745847&oldid=803744050
I also warned him and he started this senseless discussion blaming me for breaking the rules... this user is pretty new and i'm sure that he has to read a bit better about the rules, as he blamed me before for "breaking the self reversion rule" which is clearly stated that a self reversion does not enter in a 3 RR reversion.
He is also neither editing constructively editing the page, as he is putting changes which contradict the source. in that African admixture page. I'm just writing things which are mentioned on the sources and below, as those things are not mentioned on any source and he claims that it's a stable version, which was posted months ago by an anonymous IP. WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS were not accepted by him.
There is nothing such as WP:STABLE in that page which is constantly attacked by anonymous IPs. This is just on those past days:
96.95.175.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 88.17.188.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 31.4.211.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
and suspicion on 80.30.156.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , which I will talk more specifically about this user after this.
My editions were deleting the false information on the page African admixture in Europe, as the sources were not backing up the text. He didn't even check the sources or my editions, he just was in a "no-no" mood reverting them.
He even admitted here that he didn't even look at the sources, but he kept reverting my factual changes applying what the sources say: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803747253&oldid=803746579
I first warned him in his talk page, he deleted it all and said "understood" but he was still in the same "no-no" mood. So I proposed the page for protection and the administrators are taking care of it. After that, he started to write a lot on my talking page, as well as to put the typical images for users vandalizing pages (copy & paste from who knows where) and then he copied and pasted in my talk page the discussion which we had on his talk page and the African admixture talk page. Why?
After all of this, I even left a new message in his talk page considering that this discussion is resolved, but he went further, readed some Wikipedia rules and came here to accuse me of the things which he did today. I also have a highly suspicion that he is, as well, probably the same user as 80.30.156.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP as his writing style is identical, and he basically edited the same articles with this anonymous IP.
This is senseless and nothing more but a edit war, I was just sticking to delete the false information which wasn't backed up by sources while this user even admitted that he didn't look at the sources, just started to revert my editions because he considered them as "not stable". How can a page be "stable" if it hasn't got any source backing up that information? What would I win lying? I got thousands of edits in Wikipedia and I know perfectly how does it work. I just warned this user today with the rules and he started all of this mess up. He is basically accusing me of what he did... --TechnicianGB (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Admittedly not a new editor, I don't see where you have made the connection to your previous account, Farangizsaifi. Is there a reason that you have not done so? It might help allay concerns here.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Berean Hunter My old account has been inactive for such a long span of time (years now) it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. I am specifically making clear I do not want to get involved in the subject-matter of the edit dispute, I don't want to edit war on this. I just wanted this user to understand how Wikipedia and WP:BRD works. A simple explanation from an admin would be enough. Farangizsaifi (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Minor correction. TechnicianGB didn't ask me to protect the page. They posted at WP:RFPP where I was already enjoying myself annoying people. They asked for semi and got full. I didn't war either as they both seemed to know what they were doing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@CambridgeBayWeather: and @Berean Hunter: can we delete this or archive this? The user has been confirmed as a troll, a sockpuppet of Gaditano23 and it has been blocked definetly. Regards! --TechnicianGB (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Range block expert?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At February 27 we've had a user repeatedly adding what looks like their own name to it, using a second account after the first one was blocked. Now they're doing it from IPs, using 113.210.110.9, 113.210.118.14, and 113.210.142.159 so far. If there's anyone around who's experienced in range blocks and checking for collateral damage, would they be kind enough to see if there's a range block possible here? Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Sorted 3 IPv4 addresses:
- 113.210.110.9
- 113.210.118.14
- 113.210.142.159
| Total affected |
Affected addresses |
Given addresses |
Range | Contribs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 64K | 65536 | 3 | 113.210.0.0/16 | contribs |
| 8193 | 8192 | 2 | 113.210.96.0/19 | contribs |
| 1 | 1 | 113.210.142.159 | contribs | |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 113.210.110.9 | contribs |
| 1 | 1 | 113.210.118.14 | contribs | |
| 1 | 1 | 113.210.142.159 | contribs | |
- @Boing! said Zebedee: Any other IPs? Currently there's no good range -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 19:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- That's the only three we have so far - thanks for trying. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- PS: There'sNoTime, that Template:blockcalc thing looks really good, thanks for that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Out of curiousity, does that top one block *chokes* >65,000 people?!?! — fortunavelut luna 19:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- A /16 does, yes - 65,536 addresses from x.x.0.0 to x.x.255.255. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- The range is very busy and blocking would not be the way to go. Semi-protecting the page if he returns would be a better strategy in my opinion.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- The range is very busy and blocking would not be the way to go. Semi-protecting the page if he returns would be a better strategy in my opinion.
- A /16 does, yes - 65,536 addresses from x.x.0.0 to x.x.255.255. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Out of curiousity, does that top one block *chokes* >65,000 people?!?! — fortunavelut luna 19:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Throwaway Rollbacktime account 'imposing' content (3RR violation, etc.)
Resolved, nac SwisterTwister talk 20:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An account seemingly created for one specific purpose, 'enforcing' the presence of (non-article) content in the "List of most visited art museums" [208] and "List of most visited museums"[209] articles.
Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 20:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- May also be Special:Contributions/DKON. TP ✎ ✓ 20:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- [210] First one solved, will look at second. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- DKON blocked too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- SiefkinD (talk · contribs) now seems to have the baton. Perhaps page protection is in order? Otherwise this could become a game of whack-a-mole. Kleuske (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked them, and an IP, and semi'd both pages. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rhode Island IPs and Badmintonhist evading a block
Resolved, nac SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Badmintonhist/Archive, a complaint against Special:Contributions/68.0.204.180 resulted in Floquenbeam blocking the Rhode Island IP for six months starting in August.
A new IP from Rhode Island is now doing the same things, also starting in August: Special:Contributions/131.109.225.34.
Both of the IPs, the sockmaster, and confirmed sock Motsebboh were active at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center, in every case working to diminish SPLC. A very similar IP, Special:Contributions/131.109.225.24, was blocked for the same reasons in 2015. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- 131.109.225.34 anon-blocked for three months for block evasion.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, that does it. Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
POV block needed for antisemitic Nazi IP
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can we get a POV block for User:2600:8805:1500:72f0:9561:2d01:888d:3f20, who described Adolf Hitler as "our lord and savior" [211], called Josef Mengele a "hero" [212] and "Savior of our race" [213], and Reinhard Heydrich "the savior of the master race and slayer of kykes". [214] Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- I blocked the IP, Beyond My Ken, under the theory that "slayer of kykes" is a horrific misspelling, as well as totally unacceptable for several other reasons. The proper way to spell the slur is "kike". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm glad that you upheld the venerable and sacred Principle of Correct Spelling of Slurs. Now if you can just get the Brits to spell "honor" and "color" correctly, and stop calling trucks "lorries" and elevators "lifts", everything will be good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Bender the Bot is malfunctioning
I'm just going to be bold and close this. We can't take action on something if you don't provide evidence for it. Feel free to reopen if you can provide such evidence, preferably as a diff link. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 02:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It was manufactured in South El Monte not El Monte — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B04B:F303:40F0:86A6:4677:7195 (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- IP, can we see a diff please? Otherwise we can't fix it. Yoshi24517Chat On Wikibreak 04:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Wait, I thought Bender the Bot was manufactured in Tijuana?
- Jokes aside, the bot's last edits are from September 2, and all of them are repairing broken links. Can you please name the article where you saw this error so we can take a look? –FlyingAce✈hello 14:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Google is pointing towards it being a gun manufactured by AMT, but not sure which model. - X201 (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- I have no idea what this discussion is about, does anyone else? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Google is pointing towards it being a gun manufactured by AMT, but not sure which model. - X201 (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Possible legal threat from User:Austintexasart
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please see File:The Ecospheres of Daniel Pavon Cuellar.jpg - this seems to be a legal threat. In addition, also see this user's talk page on Commons - their uploads both here and there should probably be put up for deletion and/or the user blocked until OTRS permission is provided. If there are Commons admins here, they should probably have a look at File:ACTIVE LAWSUIT IN AUSTIN TEXAS.jpg and File:LAWSUIT Vs Attorneys Austin Texas.jpg too. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Train2104: I am not sure if the user was making a legal threat, rather using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote their legal action. I've blocked the user and deleted the promotional images. Looks like it's being dealt with on Commons too. Alex ShihTalk 15:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Diruptive editing by User:954482ab
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The User:954482ab is engaged in continuous data and references removal or pov pushing. The article Baselios Yeldo is the best example for the user's disruptive editing. Have given multiple warning in his talkpage by different users. but this user is not ready to listen. Please check and take necessary actions.- 223.186.221.98 (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've blocked them indefinitely; we'll see if they talk to anyone. And for next time, 223.* (hopefully there won't be a next time), the big red note at the top of the page says you should have notified the editor of this thread. I've folded that into the block notice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Problem between Users Domdeparis and SergeWoodzing (me)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Suddenly, I am being accused of spamming on the talk pages and in edit comments of articles (so far) Batavia, Illinois, Christoph, Prince of Schleswig-Holstein, Jacob Truedson Demitz, Moritz, Landgrave of Hesse, Valentine's Day and Wild Side Story by the other user mentioned above. It's hard for me to find good faith in some of the edits, remarks and accusations.
Apparently, that user does not like one particular person Emil Eikner, personally, and would like to censor Wikipedia to exclude or limit the use of that name even where (as I see it) clearly relevant, especialy in a few images and their captions. Even if he appears doing a song with a notable person, for example, the whole image is to be removed. When he's presenting a piece of music he owns to a mayor, his name is to be 86'd. Personal animosity toward producers and other employers, for reasons that are not too hard to grasp, even toward relatively unknown ones, sometimes complicate Internet projects.
I am asking that that user's and my own behavior be looked at neutrally in that regard. I admit I made a mistake in linking the controversial (?) name from Wikipedia to a Commons gallery page.
Having been thus accused once before, some time ago, and aquitted, I now feel uncertain as to whether or not I took that aquittal as license to misbehave. I certainly hope not, and that has never been my objective. I have gladly done my best in good faith to contribute construcvively.
I try very hard to keep Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest in mind and not to add images that do not include generally notable persons and/or are clearly relevant to articles (as I see it) in other ways. As most users, I have had my images removed, or have replaced them myself with better images from other sources.
Problems now began at Indian Love Call where reverts without discussing article content seem to be this user's method of sorts to get h way - please see Talk:Indian Love Call#Image of a duo singing the song replaced by movie poster.
On several pages of article talk, the user obviously wishes to personalize the issues, without addressing an article's content, by simply copy-paste repeating the spam accusation and referring to accusations made on my talk page, which I twice have asked should cease there.
Without opening any talk about them, the user today also added BLP source and notability tags to well-referenced articles Jacob Truedson Demitz (66 footnotes & references & carefully evaluated in 2008 by several neutral users & marked as a B Class quality article), Wild Side Story (35 references) and Birgit Ridderstedt (15 references). It just looks like retaliation at me because I have been involved with those articles.
I'm hoping these problems can be contained where they are now, not expanded extensively, and that they can be resolved equitably with your help. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- It certainly looks to me like the OP is "wedging" mention of this individual into the encyclopedia anywhere he can. I've removed the picture in question from the article on Batavia as it is non-illustrative of any part of the article. That being said, this is a content dispute and not a matter for ANI, and I will be closing it. Work it out amongst yourselves and if that fails, avail yourselves of WP:DR processes. John from Idegon (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
WilliamJE, once again
Would someone mind enforcing this interaction ban on WilliamJE? For several years, he's been following me to random articles that I'd just edited (articles that he'd never before edited), as has been documented repeatedly in this page's archives as well as in places like here and here.
Just about a year ago, after being warned by Jehochman that disruption related to me left him dangerously close to being indefinitely blocked, he created an ANI thread against me, but it boomeranged, as you can see from the link in my first sentence. Since then, I've repeatedly noticed him following me to random articles as before, but with no technical violation of the ban (merely WP:HOUND, but not confronting me directly), I didn't want to raise the issue. However, when your first edit to an article is removing a category that I'd just added, you've crossed the bright line of "revert in one way or another his edits", to quote both WP:IBAN and the warning he was given upon the ban's imposition. It's not ordinary maintenance of this nonexistent category, since ordinary maintenance would involve replacing the error with the actual category, not removing it. Note that the diff I cited is one of several ban violations right around the same time: he also made the same edit (again, his first edit to each page) in two other cases, [215] and [216]. I've not put the right category into these articles yet, because I've maintained a policy of treating this as a two-way interaction ban as long as I can remember; I've not edited his talk page in two years until leaving note of this thread, and I've intentionally stayed away from discussions involving him in any way, e.g. when he started an XFD with a rationale with which I completely agreed. If I've started any interactions with him since he was banned, I don't remember it.
When you've been blocked for a battleground mentality, you're nearly indef-blocked for such, and you get a community-imposed boomerang ban for such, you're on thin ice. When you keep it up in direct defiance of the ban, it's time to enforce the ban. Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Nyttend fails to mention a few things. 1- I edited three other Virginia articles before Cliff Kill. That's how I came into that article. 2- I routinely unlink articles to non-existent categories. My last 5,000 contributions[217] list over 30 such edit summaries and nearly 100 in my last 10,000 with the edit summary 'removed link to non-existent category'. I found the first wrongly linked page, went to the page, saw there were two others there, and removed all three. Nyttend is not correct when he says 'It's not ordinary maintenance of this nonexistent category, since ordinary maintenance would involve replacing the error with the actual category, not removing it.' WP:REDNOT says 'An article should never be left with a non-existent (red-linked) category in it. Either the category should be created, or else the nonexistent category link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist.' I remove them and my removing them or other violations of REDNOT have been discussed on my talk page[218] or at Administrator Sphilbrick's[219] to name at least two occasions. Here's a third occasion[220] and its just this week. WP:Seealso redlinks are also covered under REDNOT (aka 'Red links generally are not included in See also sections',) . Category work is obvious as one of my main interests around here if anyone seriously scrutinizes my edit history....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @WilliamJE: Your message here indicates you know you violated your interaction ban but you feel you have permission to do it. User:Jo-Jo Eumerus told you that you're not allowed to "revert in one way or another [Nyttend's] edits" and, per WP:BANEX, REDNOT was not listed as an exception. Can you show where, either in policy or from administrators, you found the right to violate your interaction ban, which was instituted because of your behavior, not your content work? 107.195.20.170 (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- No I didn't know I reverted anything he did. I didn't know he worked on the articles. Do you realize both Cliff Kill and Locust Hill (Locust Dale, Virginia)- my edit three edits back, are both categorized 'Category:National Register of Historic Places in Madison County, Virginia'? I came from one to the other. And I visited Big Meadows Site and The Homeplace articles but didn't make edits to those because they didn't need any and both are Category:National Register of Historic Places in Madison County, Virginia entries. My firefox page history for today....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @WilliamJE: Your message here indicates you know you violated your interaction ban but you feel you have permission to do it. User:Jo-Jo Eumerus told you that you're not allowed to "revert in one way or another [Nyttend's] edits" and, per WP:BANEX, REDNOT was not listed as an exception. Can you show where, either in policy or from administrators, you found the right to violate your interaction ban, which was instituted because of your behavior, not your content work? 107.195.20.170 (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
| Not productive. Swarm ♠ 06:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@Lepricavark:Your behavior in this thread leaves a lot to be desired. So? WilliamJE's explanation is perfectly plausible. True. That it's plausible goes less to its accuracy and more to the efficacy of his longstanding, markedly successful cycle where he stalks Nyttend, reverts Nyttend, then lies when questioned. (Like the NOTRED excuse, which he stopped the second he realized it wasn't going to save him from a block.) But say you're right and his explanation is true. It's still him admitting he violated his interaction ban. Look: Your claim that unawareness is somehow not an acceptable explanation here is patent nonsense. He should not be expected to check the edit history of every article he edits to make certain that Nyttend has not edited it recently. Just copy and paste the text from WP:IBAN or BANEX that says an interaction banned editor, if he has a plausible explanation, is permitted to violate it. From IBAN: "Editors subject to an IBAN are not permitted to...undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means." Where in this policy, specifically the word "any," is this wiggle room absolving him of taking two seconds to check the edit history before he replicates the same completely inappropriate behavior he's been up to for years? Your aggressive behavior towards WilliamJE in this thread indicates that you have a prior ax to grind. You gave yourself a way out by using the word "indicates." That was smart! Doesn't make your implication any less of a lie but whatever. I don't owe you an explanation but again, whatever. I'm a bored person wandering around ANI. That's it. While IPs are permitted to participate in these discussions, many of us tend to look with suspicion on an IP who jumps into a dispute between two other editors and immediately takes a strong stance on the matter. I'm looking at you saying "many of us" and wondering if you know that multiple people aren't allowed to use one username. Because what else could you be on about? 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
|
- The reason we have interaction bans is to prevent certain editors interacting. There is literally no defense available for the above. William is under a ban that prevents him interacting with Nyttend due to an extensive history of following him around. He knowingly broke it. There are none of the usual BLP/Copyvio exceptions here (and I would be shocked if Nyttend had made some). Can an admin take the appropriate action please. An interaction ban is the *end* point for when polite (and more explicit) warnings have had no effect on one (or both) editors. At this time they should be blocked until they undertake to a)abide by the ban, b)indicate they understand why they have been blocked. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Vandalism?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An anonymous user (here) is rapidly making similar changes to articles on Kurdish/Assyrian topics. This is not at all my area, so I can't be sure it's vandalism. Could someone else please see to this? Thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Jessicapierce: Not exactly vandalism, just POV pushing. I've reverted all of the edits and left a note for the IP user. Alex ShihTalk 04:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Alex Shih: That was lightning fast. Thank you! Jessicapierce (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Theshibin
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Possibly promotional editing, but also user harrassment (blanking their pages repeatedly). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Communication and sourcing concerns
Hello, I've been patrolling new pages and as I was searching by keywords, I cam across a group of articles created by Alldinna Rui. Most were less than two lines long (which is fine), but not marked as stubs, lacking wikilinks and the only important point, not clearly referenced. As I reviewed them, I tagged them as stub and refimprove or needing more inline citations. I messaged Alldinna Rui to ask if the 'external links' section is actually a list of the sources rather than friendly suggestions, and if so, if the title could be used as 'notes', 'references' or 'sources', so it's clear to the reader and other editors. This is all routine patrolling and didn't need to be a big deal, but having references is important and it is unclear whether it has sources poorly labelled or none at all, and I was happy to help resolve the issue.
Alldinna Rui has not responded to any of the messages, which have included links to WP:COMMUNICATE. I sent a message entitled 'Warning' yesterday, again asking the editor to please communicate and please answer my question about whether the external links were actually sources. Alldinna Rui had not created any new articles in a week, but then created 24 articles today (so far!), and went through articles I'd tagged, removing refimprove tags [221], and giving no edit summary. When I re-added it with the edit summary: 'Please do not remove tags with no edit summary giving a reason and no attempt to address the issue', the editor did exactly the same thing again on the same article, which is clear edit warring. I messaged Alldinna Rui about this, but no reply. I'm not here in the hope of getting huge sanctions for Alldinna Rui, just needing some help encouraging Alldinna Rui to see that WP:Communication is required on Wikipedia and that sourcing is important and to slow down/stop creations (24 so far today is a lot! Especially when issues have been raised). Ignoring my messages and removing tags without giving a reason is disruptive editing. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Also seems to be using the IP 111.94.213.156, which is making the same edits to the same articles. PamD added multiple issues tags to Pluit (Transjakarta) (where I had twice added tags but then left it) but this IP just reverted them, no discussion. Looks like WP:DUCK. Its edits for at least the last month appear to all be on articles also edited by Alldina Rui [222].Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've rolled back the IP's tag-removal edits of today, and left a warning about removing maintenance tags, but I see they created a vast number more of these no-context, no-links, no-footnotes stubs for bus stations (bus stops?) in Jakarta. Dubious notability. No links from dab pages (usually if I'm stub-sorting Pluit (Transjakarta) I'd check for a hatnote or dab page link from Pluit, but I just lost the enthusiasm faced with this flood of poor stubs. PamD 09:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- I see that Zulfikar Dwi Putra created a lot of very similar articles to those created by Alldinna Rui and wonder whether there's any sockpuppetry here, or just a group of enthusiasts working on the same bus network. PamD 09:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- If this was several pages, we could sit down and try harder to get the attention of the user. But this was mass creation of 134 pages (if I am counting correctly) in a very short period of time, and every page that I looked through had the same issues (no reference, no direct verification and no indicator of notability). For the time being, I've ran a mass deletion of recent creation by the user, and I am going to ping Arifin.wijaya who seem to be knowledgeable about this subject (administrator on id.wiki, familiar with Transjakarta), and hopefully they can communicate with Alldinna Rui so that we can come up with a solution. Alex ShihTalk 09:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Flathead engine
Currently, there is an edit war going on in the article on the Flathead engine. Me, User:Andy Dingley and User:1292simon are involved. I removed an unreferenced section (WP:V, WP:NOR) from the article. Also, I explained why I believe that the section was Original research (I tried finding reliable sources); see the talk page. However, Andy Dingley and 1292simon re-added that unreferenced section to the article. 1292simon knows that the section is unreferenced as well as most likey original research and still adds it, because he believes it is correct. This is highly disruptive editing: Adding false information on purpose and igonring the core policies WP:V and WP:NOR. Since I don't want to contribute to an edit war, I request administrative action. Unfortunately, they seem to know that content must be added to articles only if there is evidence but they ignore it. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: There is an ongoing discussion on AN about Johnjoy violating his topic ban on editing anything automobile related. Nihlus 10:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)